week 2
1
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Fall 2015/Volume 12, No. 3
Table of Contents
Board of Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sponsorship and Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Research Articles
Principal Preparation—Revisited—Time Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
by Daniel Gutmore, PhD
Principal Concerns and Superintendent Support During Teacher Evaluation Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . .11
by Mary Lynne Derrington, EdD and John W. Campbell, PhD
Commentary
School Administrator Quality in Minority-Serving Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
by Mariela A. Rodriguez, PhD; Carol A Mullen, PhD; Tawannah G. Allen, EdD
Mission and Scope, Copyright, Privacy, Ethics, Upcoming Themes,
Author Guidelines & Publication Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
AASA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Editorial Review Board
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
2012-2015
Editors Christopher H. Tienken, Seton Hall University
Ken Mitchell, Manhattanville College
Associate Editors
Barbara Dean, AASA, The School Superintendents Association
Kevin Majewski, Seton Hall University
Editorial Review Board Albert T. Azinger, Illinois State University
Sidney Brown, Auburn University, Montgomery
Gina Cinotti, Netcog Public Schools, New Jersey Brad Colwell, Bowling Green University
Sandra Chistolini, Universita`degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome
Michael Cohen, Denver Public Schools
Betty Cox, University of Tennessee, Martin
Theodore B. Creighton, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Gene Davis, Idaho State University, Emeritus
John Decman, University of Houston, Clear Lake
David Dunaway, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Daniel Gutmore, Seton Hall University
Gregory Hauser, Roosevelt University, Chicago
Jane Irons, Lamar University
Thomas Jandris, Concordia University, Chicago
Zach Kelehear, University of South Carolina
Theodore J. Kowalski, University of Dayton
Nelson Maylone, Eastern Michigan University
Robert S. McCord, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Barbara McKeon, Broome Street Academy Charter High School, New York, NY
Sue Mutchler, Texas Women's University
Margaret Orr, Bank Street College
David J. Parks, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
George E. Pawlas, University of Central Florida
Dereck H. Rhoads, Beaufort County School District
Paul M. Terry, University of South Florida
Thomas C. Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University
Published by
AASA, The School Superintendents Association
1615 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Available at www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx
ISSN 1931-6569
3
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Sponsorship and Appreciation
The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice would like to thank AASA, The School
Superintendents Association, in particular the AASA Leadership Development Office, for its ongoing
sponsorship of the Journal.
We also offer special thanks to Christopher Tienken, Seton Hall University, and Kenneth Mitchell,
Manhattanville College, for their efforts in selecting and editing the articles that comprise this
professional education journal.
The unique relationship between research and practice is appreciated, recognizing the mutual benefit to
those educators who conduct the research and seek out evidence-based practice and those educators
whose responsibility it is to carry out the mission of school districts in the education of children.
Without the support of AASA, Christopher Tienken and Kenneth Mitchell, the AASA Journal of
Scholarship and Practice would not be possible.
4
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Research Article ____________________________________________________________________
Principal Preparation—Revisited—Time Matters
Daniel Gutmore, PhD
Faculty Associate
Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy
Seton Hall University
South Orange, NJ
Abstract
There has been both a historic and continuing interest in the preparation process for school
administrators (principals and vice principals). Much of the literature has been critical of how school
administrators are prepared (Achilles, 1991; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Levine, 2005; Hallinger and
Lu, 2013). Although the length of time from graduation to hiring was explored, little attention has
been paid to the satisfaction of graduates from principal preparation and the number of years that
transpired from graduation to job placement. An unknown outcome in the literature on principal
preparation programs is the impact of satisfaction in relation to the length of time in securing an
administrative position. This article attempts to provide some insight into the relationship.
Key Words
principal preparation, career satisfaction
5
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Introduction
There has been both a historic and continuing interest in the preparation process for school
administrators (principals and vice principals).
Much of the literature has been critical of how
school administrators are prepared (Achilles,
1991; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Levine, 2005;
Hallinger and Lu, 2013). In instances where the
process has been identified as positive, it has
been characterized as an outlier under the
definition of “exemplary programs” (Orr and
Orpanos, 2011; Taylor, Pelleties, Kelly,
Trimble, Todd and Ruiz, 2014).
An interesting phenomenon of the
preparation process that has not been examined
is the elapsed time from being prepared to
become a school administrator and satisfaction
with the preparation process. Unlike many
other professions, being prepared does not
necessarily result in securing a position.
Gahungu (2008), studying an Illinois
preparation program, noted that, from 1995 to
2005, of the 503 students graduated from the
program, only 168 of the certified candidates
had held administrative positions in public
schools by 2007. Bathon and Black (2010)
found in their study of Indiana principal
placement that 59% of all graduates find
employment as either principals or assistant
principals (soon after graduation).
Although the length of time from
graduation to hiring has been explored, little
attention has been paid to the satisfaction of
graduates from principal preparation and the
number of years that transpired from
graduation to job placement. An unknown
outcome in the literature on principal
preparation programs is the impact of
satisfaction in relation to the length of time in
securing an administrative position.
Literature Review For the last twenty-five years, there has been
the realization that effective principals are an
important variable in school improvement
(Spillane, 2003).
In spite of that assertion, until relatively
recently little attention has been paid to the
preparation process and how schools of
educational administration have designed their
preparation programs (Achilles, 2004; Hale and
Morman, 2003; Levine, 2005). The focus has
been directed at four aspects of that process;
licensure, certification and accreditation,
principal preparation and professional
development (Beck and Murphy, 1996).
There has also been a concern that
preparation programs are too theoretical and
not grounded in administrative and leadership
reality (Murphy, 1992).
Another study identified several major
concerns: the admission process for prospective
students with some among the lowest standards
in the nation; the lack of clarity of purpose; the
absence of systematic self- assessment; the
absence of a coherent curriculum; a poorly
equipped professorate; a lack of attention paid
to clinical education and mentorship; research
that is detached from practice; and insufficient
funding (Levine, 2005). These areas are
similar to the observations of Achilles (1991);
Hale and Moorman,(2003) and Elmore (2000)
who added to the litany of concerns, the lack of
an agreed - upon knowledge base to guide the
preparation of school administrators.
6
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
On a parallel and connected path, there
has emerged a more substantive research base
regarding effective leadership practices related
to the principal.
One of the more compelling works is
that of Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003)
who examined thirty years of research on the
effects of leadership on student achievement. In
their meta-analysis they identified two primary
variables that determine whether or not
leadership will have a positive or negative
impact on achievement: the focus of change or
whether there is a focus on improving practices
directly related to student achievement with an
understanding by the leader of the magnitude or
order of the change. They further identified 21
leadership responsibilities and associated
practices connected to student achievement and
organized them into a taxonomy of four types
of knowledge: experiential knowledge
(knowing why it is important), declarative
(knowing what to do), procedural (knowing
how) and contextual (knowing when).
Another theme has been to review
what principal preparation programs are doing
in response to the external criticism. Hallinger
and Lu (2013) found that the influence of
business practices has become more
pronounced with specific alignment to the role
of case studies and mentoring programs.
Peck and Reitzug (2012) identified
three management concepts that tend to
permeate many preparation program designs:
management by objectives, total quality
management, and turnaround restructuring.
There has also been greater focus on field
experiences and a direct connection to
authentic inquiry (Perez, Uline, Johnson,
James-Ward, and Basom, 2010). Providing
more direct in- school experiences, where
prospective candidates could apply the skills
and concepts learned in a classroom setting,
became a pivotal focus.
Recently there has been an attempt to
connect the role of the principal and their
preparation to student outcomes (Orr and
Orphonos, 2011; Donmoyer, Donmoyer and
Galloway, 2012)). Although much of the work
was focused on so-called "exemplary
programs" and the results were mixed, the fact
that there is now an attempt to determine if
there is a connection to student outcomes and
principal behaviors in connection with their
preparation program is a significant shift in the
direction of focus on principal preparation
programs.
There has also emerged a collective sense
that principal leadership is distributed and its
foundation rests on a base of expertise rather
than hierarchical authority (Camburn, Rowan,
and Taylor, 2003; Kochan and Reed, 2005).
Leadership is viewed from the vantage point of
interdependence and operates within both a
vertical and horizontal continuum depending on
the context organizational circumstances. The
implications of the new insights emerging
regarding leadership are that the profession is
nearing the foundation level for agreement on
what constitutes a knowledge base for the
preparation of school level administrators and
the potential for a unifying approach to that
process (Brown and Flanary, 2004).
Although much has been written about
principal preparation, it has focused on
satisfaction as determined by graduates or those
who retrospectively evaluate their programs
once they acquire an administrative position.
Other thematic areas are what programs are
doing to "better" prepare their candidates.
There has also been an attempt to connect
preparation to student outcomes. Missing from
the analysis is the relationship between the
7
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
length of time that elapses from exiting a
preparation program and acquiring an
administrative position and satisfaction by
graduates with the preparation process. An
unknown outcome in the literature on principal
preparation programs is the impact of
satisfaction and length of time in securing an
administrative position.
The Study To determine if there was a relationship
between satisfaction with principal preparation
programs and the number of years that elapsed
from completing a preparation program and
securing an administrative position, a
structured questionnaire was developed and
sent to 1,583 principals in a northeastern state.
The list was from a database developed
by the state education agency and was current
for the school year 2014. The survey consisted
of a limited number (3) of questions asking
respondents to rate their satisfaction with their
leadership preparation program using a 5 point
Likert rating scale with 5 indicating
exceptionally prepared and 1 not prepared at
all. Respondents were asked to indicate the
length of time that elapsed from receiving their
degree and receiving an administrative
appointment with choices ranging from
immediately on graduation to more than five
years later. Respondents were also asked to
indicate the institution or program granting
them the degree. Two hundred sixty-seven
principals responded to the survey representing
fifty-seven universities and colleges providing
principal preparation programs.
The Results Although 267 principals responded, the
response rate represents only 16% of the
population. Caution needs to be taken in the
conclusions that are drawn, given the low
return rate. Two hundred and sixty-seven is a
number that allows statistical analysis but may
represent a population that is not representative
of the study group. To determine the
significance of the relationship between
satisfaction and the number of years elapsing
between completion of a preparation program
and receiving a principal position, Spearman
rho (r) was applied to the tabulated results.
There are many cases where
dependency between two variables can be
observed but where the distribution is unknown
(Yamane, 1967; Creswell, 2012).
Nonparametric correlation coefficients provide
the ability to determine statistical significance
in such instances and, therefore, Spearman rho
(r) was the appropriate application. The
outcome revealed a .181 statistical significance
between satisfaction and appointment to an
administrative position either immediately on
graduating or 1 to 2 years later. The outcome is
statistically significant but relatively weak in its
strength.
Discussion This study reveals a connection with
satisfaction with the preparation process and
the number of years it took actually to receive
an administrative position.
The sooner an administrative position
was secured, the greater the satisfaction.
Although caution is needed in generalizing
beyond the scope of this study, there are
implications for both future research and the
designs of principal preparation programs. In
terms of future research, a much wider survey
of graduates of principal preparation programs
would indicate the broader significance of time
as a variable in program satisfaction.
More importantly there is a policy issue
that needs to be addressed immediately. If there
are significant gaps between preparation and
8
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
administrative placement and graduates feel
less prepared, as a result, what can programs do
to address the issue? The response to this
question includes both ethical and social
responsibility implications.
Principal preparation programs within
this context need to go beyond just preparation
and graduation but meet the social
responsibility to address their graduate’s needs.
One possible solution is to allow all
graduates to attend any classes they feel a need
to attend as a refresher in developing skills
introduced in previous classroom settings.
These ‘refreshers’ should be at no cost to the
students but become a part of the social, ethical
and professional responsibility of the program
provider. The idea of “no cost” is not the
financial burden it may appear to be. The
refresher could be offered when existing
classes are in session. Students who need to be
refreshed sit in on the classes and participate in
the scope and demand for their specific needs.
A second programmatic response would
be to schedule low cost or no cost seminars in
areas that improve the management and
leadership skills of graduates and keep them up
to date on the research on best practices.
These seminars could be scheduled on
weekends to allow maximum participation.
Another implication of the study is the need to
provide counseling and support to graduates as
they enter the administrative marketplace. It is
not enough to merely graduate students but to
also facilitate the employment process.
Author Biography
Daniel Gutmore is a faculty associate at Seton Hall University. He was a teacher and practicing school
and central office administrator for over 30 years, all in an urban school setting. His areas of interest
are organizational theory, supervision of instruction, ethical decision making and principal preparation
process. E-mail: gutmorda@shu.edu
9
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
References
Achilles, C. M. (2004). Change the damn box. In Educational Leadership: Knowing the Way,
Showing the Way, Going the Way, edited by C. Carr and C. Fulmer. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education.
Achilles, C. M. (1991). Reforming educational administration: An agenda for the 1990’s.
Planning and Changing 22: 23-33.
Bathon, J., & Black, W. (2010). Where do our graduates go? A five-year exploration of the
regional distribution of principal preparation graduates. NCPEA International Journal
of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6 (1), 1-22.
Beck, L. & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Brown, F., & Flanary, D. (2004). How many principal preparation groups does it take to
screw in the light bulb? NCPEA Educational Review, 5, 2-3.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case
of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.
Donmoyer, R., Donmoyer, J., & Galloway, F. (2012). The search for connections across principal
preparation, principal performance, and student achievement in an exemplary
principal preparation program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7 (5),
5-43.
Elmore, R. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute.
Gahungu, A. (2008). Is a principal certificate a passport to salary enhancement or to
administrative positions in schools? NCPEA Connexions Module. 1-16.
Hale, E., & Moorman, N. A national perspective on policy and program innovation.
Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leadership; Edwardsville, IL: Education
Research Council, 2003.
Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Preparing principals: What can we learn from MBA and MPA
Programs? Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 41, (4), 435-452.
Kochan, F. K., & Reed, C. J. (2005). Collaborative leadership, community building and
democracy in public education. In The Sage Handbook of Educational Leadership, Advances in
Theory, Research and Practice, edited by Fenwick W. English. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publication.
10
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: The Education Schools Project.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation. New York: Teachers College.
Orr, T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate level preparation influences the effectiveness of school
leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership
preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47 (18), 18-70.
Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2012). How existing business management concepts become school
leadership fashions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (2), 347-381.
Perez, L. G., Uline, C. L., Johnson J. F., James-Ward, C., & Basom, M. R. (2011).
Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: the transformative capacity of authentic
inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47 (1), 217-257.
Spillane, J. P.(2003). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25,
343-346.
Taylor, R., Pelletier, K., Trimble, T., & Ruiz, E. (2014). Urban school district’s preparing new
principals program 2008-2011: Perceptions of program completers, supervising principals and
senior levels district administrators. NCPEA International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 9 (1), 1-13.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of
leadership on student achievement. MCREL, 2003.
11
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Research Article ____________________________________________________________________
Principal Concerns and Superintendent Support During Teacher
Evaluation Changes
Mary Lynne Derrington, EdD
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
John W. Campbell, PhD
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Alcoa City Schools
Alcoa, TN
Abstract
Teacher evaluation is a major reform initiative in public education’s high accountability policy
environment. Principals’ effective implementation of this high-stakes reform is challenged by time
management, policy coherence, communication with teachers, district support, and staff development
imperatives. Effective implementation requires moving beyond time and management concerns
towards collaborative leadership with supervisors. Although teacher evaluation policies are often state
initiated, local level superintendents and district leaders must understand principals’ challenges to
provide useful guidance and support.
Based on a three-year study of a southeastern state’s Race to the Top driven implementation of
redesigned teacher evaluation policies, this article examines principals’ concerns and need for support
plus superintendent strategies for addressing gaps that state and federal policymakers may leave during
such mandated reform. The Stages of Concern framework from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM) was used to examine principals’ concerns and superintendents’ support. Lessons learned and
implications for superintendents are described.
Key Words
teacher evaluation, leadership, CBAM
12
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Principals, Reform of Teacher
Evaluation, and Need for Support
Implementing a new and more rigorous teacher evaluation system presents new challenges to a
principal’s already complex job, particularly in
states and districts with redesigned
accountability policy mandates. Juggling
multiple demands and expectations (Honig and
Hatch, 2004; Leithwood, Strauss, & Anderson,
2007) principals are responsible for interpreting
and implementing policy designed from afar
and making it applicable, relevant, and
effective for their teachers (Datnow, Hubbard,
& Mehan, 2002; McLaughlin, 1987; Park &
Datnow, 2009; Spillane, Diamond, Burch,
Hallett, Loyiso, & Zoltners, 2002).
Consequently, principals are the critical link for
successful policy implementation (Datnow et
al., 2002). However, they require support as
they learn the details of new, more complex
policies and more demanding accountability
driven expectations.
This article, based on a longitudinal
study (Derrington & Campbell, 2015),
describes principals’ concerns during the
implementation of a new reform-driven teacher
evaluation policy. After years of infrequent
teacher evaluation and generally meaningless
consequences, principals were required to
quickly learn and implement a demanding,
high-stakes evaluation process. This study’s
results also describes superintendent supportive
actions in response to principals’ concerns
during teacher evaluation implementation.
New Evaluation Policies In 2010, the state discussed in this article
received approximately one-half billion federal
dollars as one of the first two Race to the Top
(RttT) grant recipients. Terms of eligibility for
federal RttT funding included developing and
implementing stringent teacher evaluation
policies (McGuinn, 2012; Sawchuk, 2011).
Many significant changes from past
practice included requirements for multiple
observations of each teacher each year,
mandatory use of a detailed rubric of teaching
behaviors, quick feedback requirements, and
quantitative scoring and data reporting.
For the majority of school districts,
interim observation scores were submitted
directly to the state’s Department of Education.
Averages from these observations were used
for calculating 50% of each teacher’s annual,
summative effectiveness rating, with student
assessment data comprising the other 50%
(Tennessee Department of Education, 2011). While the observation portion was field-tested,
the assessment-based portion was not
developed until the months immediately
preceding the policies’ statewide
implementation.
School leaders were rapidly trained on
the new evaluation system’s procedures, which
were still being developed as the 2011-12
school year began (Derrington & Campbell,
2013). Adding to the challenge was another
break from the past—principals were to be
evaluated on the degree to which they faithfully
implemented these rigorous new evaluation
requirements.
Change and Implementation Barriers The quick passage of new laws and regulations,
followed by equally rapid design and
deployment of new high-accountability systems
for teacher evaluation can present numerous
challenges (Derrington & Campbell, 2013). Yet
even if reform procedures are implemented in
13
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
the early stages, other issues may interfere with
expected educational improvement (Hope &
Pigford, 2002). For example, systems that are
procedurally cumbersome or time consuming
can hinder effectiveness (Lytle, 2012;
Kennedy, 2010). In addition, Timperley and
Robinson (1997) discussed implementation
problems arising when externally designed
systems are deployed without collaborating
with those who must apply such systems.
Meaningful change more likely results
from collaboration between policy makers and
practitioners (Hope & Pigford, 2002). Without
such collaboration, opportunities may be lost
for increasing professional collegiality
(Marshall, 2009) and for better identifying
shared understandings of what comprises good
teaching and support for improved teacher
performance (Kennedy, 2010).
Evaluation involves a complex set of
human and organizational interactions and
transactions and cannot be viewed, for
example, as simply a process of observing,
rating, and making a retention decision
(Petersen, 1995). A principal leading a staff in
a high-accountability environment works under
personal and professional pressures to perform
while executing new expectations to observe
and report on myriad individual teacher
behaviors.
Thus principals must simultaneously
implement accountability–driven evaluation
systems while managing complex, interrelated,
and sometimes inscrutable teaching and
learning variables (Derrington & Campbell,
2013).
As the history of changing approaches
to teacher supervision illustrates, altering one
part of the process may require other
component modification as well (Derrington,
2011). Thus broad, statewide implementation
of new evaluation policy demands provokes
multi-faceted, contextually varied responses
that require the active, collaborative
engagement of school leaders at all levels.
Principals’ Need for Support Principals manage from a position between
reform mandates and day-to-day teacher
supervision when implementing evaluation
policies. Consequently, successful policy
implementation depends on the principals’
ability, authority, and motivation to make both
strategic learning decisions and needed changes
for staff (Fowler, 2009).
Operating in this challenging,
intermediary position, a principal might
succumb to resistance or simply work to buffer
the staff from external pressures of district,
state, and federal policy makers (Adamowski &
Petrilli, 2007). In addition, principals work
within a district system, which also affects their
decision-making. Consequently, district-office
expectations and support, especially the
superintendent’s, greatly affect the principals’
authority and school management (Derrington
& Larsen, 2012).
Principals report that when demands
place them in a clearly subservient policy role,
their stress is greatly heightened (West, Peck,
Reitzuq, & Ulrich, 2010). Anxiety is further
increased as principals attempt to implement or
circumvent underdeveloped and unsupported
policies lacking well-planned implementation
(Derrington & Larsen, 2012). This gap between
a principal’s desire to exert strong leadership
and the weakened position often resulting from
policy mandates disconnected from school
reality (Adamowski & Petrilli, 2007) further
increases stressful and at times unproductive
responses to change.
14
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Principals must advocate, nurture, and
sustain instructional programs conducive to
teachers’ professional growth (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2008) and improved
learning outcomes. While providing such
support for staff during significant policy
change, principals experience the effects of
such change as well. Implementing
dramatically different policies requires learning
many unfamiliar, externally-mandated
procedures. Leading the implementation of a
new evaluation policy may fundamentally alter
the supervisory practice and create substantial
challenges in professional practice. Principals
consequently are less likely to be effective
without essential and timely support.
Superintendents who support their
administrators, in part by seeking to understand
their experiences, perceptions, and concerns
throughout an implementation, are positioned
to offer assistance and more likely to ensure
beneficial outcomes for teachers and students.
Understanding principals’ concerns and
responding to them allows superintendents and
district supervisors to provide appropriate,
timely, and well-received intervention and
support throughout the implementation process
(Derrington & Campbell, 2015).
Need for Addressing Principals’
Concerns With specific concerns about roles, actions,
influences, and effects, school principals are
greatly affected by change and are, therefore,
among the most important considerations in the
change process (Hall, 2013; Hord, Rutherford,
Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987). Concerns may
be identified as feelings, thoughts, and
reactions to the changes affecting their lives
(Hall, 2013; Hall & Hord, 2015).
Theoretically, this construct is captured
by the Stages of Concerns (SoC) framework in
Table 1 (Hall & Hord, 2015), which framed
this study of principals’ experiences during the
first three years of teacher evaluation policy
implementation (Derrington & Campbell,
2015).
15
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Table 1
Stages of Concern
Focus of concern Stage Description
Impact 6 Refocusing Ideas emerge about improvements or
potentially stronger alternatives.
5 Collaboration Cooperation with others grows, to better
coordinate and enrich implementation.
4 Consequence Awareness and concern grows, about the
influence and impact of the work upon
others.
Task 3 Management Attention to tasks and processes dominate
(e.g., information sources, time management,
resource use, efficiency).
Self 2 Personal Questions about role, competencies, and
implications emerge.
1 Informational General details about implementation
requirements are sought.
Unrelated 0 Unconcerned Little consideration of the innovation or
implementation is evident.
Note. Adapted from Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes by G. Hall and S.
Hord (2015).
Change stimulates individuals’ varied
concerns, which, in turn, affect implementation.
The personal feeling or affective dimension of
change dominates early in the implementation
and surfaces as a concern for the initiative’s
effects on oneself (Hall & Hord, 2015). For
example, principals’ concerns regarding their
competence to manage the change might cause
self-doubts to surface. Therefore, on-going
support and positive interventions for
implementers throughout the change process is
16
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
critical, though often insufficiently addressed
(Hall & Hord, 2015).
A Theoretical Lens for
Superintendents SoC is a component of the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2015) and
serves as an effective theoretical lens through
which superintendents may view experiences
and feelings of principals engaged with
implementing new evaluation policies.
Respected education researchers, Gene Hall
and Shirley Hord, have been developing the
framework since the 1980’s as a way to
understand, evaluate, and lead change
processes in educational settings.
Viewing principals from the SoC
perspective and understanding their need for
support offers superintendents, as well as other
district leaders, powerful tools for positive
results. Hall and Hord (2015) described these
supportive actions as “interventions” and found
them to be important responses for those
working to implement change.
Stages of Concern Stages of concern (SoC) can be observed as
personal and individual manifestations as the
implementation progresses (Hall, 2013; Hall &
Hord, 2011; Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin
& Hall, 1987).
The stages describe individuals’
concerns during all phases of implementation.
While presented as a continuum, it is important
to understand that the stages may not occur
sequentially. Early stages may reappear late in
an implementation, some later stages may not
be effectively reached, and multiple stages may
appear simultaneously, based on such
numerous variables as policy details,
procedures, contexts, and resources.
In the early stages, an individual is
likely to have self-concerns. In the SoC
framework, Stage 1 is “Informational;”
individuals require more information about the
change. Questions might be asked to identify
the training they will receive and how the
change is supposed to work. Stage 2 is
“Personal.” Individuals want to know the effect
of the change on his/her role during
implementation.
Questions of personal adequacy and
competence might arise as individuals face
new, unfamiliar demands. In Stage 3,
“Management,” individuals focus attention on
the tasks and the processes of using the change.
Such task-oriented concerns include time
management and how to allocate resources that
facilitate implementation. The goal at this stage
might be simply staying one day ahead of the
changes required.
As individuals advance in knowledge of
the change and become increasingly competent
in handling the tasks and processes, they might
develop impact concerns, described as Stage 4,
“Consequence,” as they examine impacts and
ways to achieve improved outcomes. Principals
might, for example, evaluate the effect or
impact the change has had on teachers or
students. A principal might seek to learn what
can be done to improve the effectiveness of the
program.
Another impact concern is Stage 5,
“Collaboration.” Individuals at this stage are
considering ways to improve the outcomes of
the innovation by working with colleagues to
problem-solve and exchange ideas. The final
phase, Stage 6, “Refocusing,” occurs when
principals are seeking even better ways to use
the innovation or devise new forms of the
innovation.
17
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
They may explore additional benefits
that could result from the change. Interestingly,
more powerful alternatives might emerge, or
proposals might be developed to alter the
current state of the change.
Studying Principals’ Concerns The SoC framework was used to examine the
perspectives of fourteen K-12 principals and
their superintendents in a Southeastern state
that dramatically changed its teacher evaluation
policies as a condition for winning RttT
funding. Specifically, the study investigated the
change and implementation concerns of
principals over 3 years, while simultaneously
examining the supportive actions of
superintendents during the implementation.
Located in suburban and semi-rural
districts, the participating sites included four
high schools, five middle schools, and five
elementary schools across four school districts.
The schools were demographically diverse,
ranging in size from 295 students to 1,486. The
percentage of students receiving free and
reduced lunch ranged from 26% to 81%. These
districts, located on the outskirts of a large,
metropolitan city, ranged in size from three
schools to 21, averaging 10 schools. Principals
and superintendent were interviewed annually,
over three years.
Principal Concerns with Change and
Implementation The principals in this study clearly exhibited
Stage 2 Personal and Stage 3 Management
concerns during the first two years of the study.
With the speed of statewide implementation,
insufficient time was available for principals to
sufficiently learn the requirements, procedures,
and teacher observation rubrics. Moreover the
processes of the new evaluation system, and
some program components, were either still in
the design phase as the year began or
undergoing revision during the first year
(Derrington & Campbell, 2013). The stress of
implementing unfamiliar and still developing
policies stimulated personal concerns and
impacted already limited time. Investments of
time required to learn and to adapt to the new
policies, and to prepare for the daily work of
implementation significantly impacted
principals’ work. As a result, principals
reallocated time spent on informal
communication with teachers, being present in
hallways and classrooms, and meeting
informally with parents, students, and others to
more office-bound work, managing the new
evaluation system.
Time previously dedicated to daily
classroom visits, for example, was reduced to
make space for more frequent, formally-scored
and documented observations, to scheduling, to
working through an extensive rubric to
generate feedback, and to data entry. This
reallocation placed principals in what they
perceived to be an untenable position, choosing
to continue with visibility and typical support
for teachers and students or to reallocate their
time for compliance with policy’s demands on
their time.
Despite the reallocation of time,
principals did not abdicate daily work with
teachers and students, opting instead to write
observation and evaluations at home or long
after the school day ended. As a result, the new
evaluation system took a personal toll on
principals as well. Some reported dramatically
increased workloads on the weekends and after
school, in addition to cancelled family and
vacation plans.
As the implementation progressed,
through year two and three, principal
viewpoints on time demands varied. While
18
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
some reported time demands decreased, due to
routines developed and greater knowledge of
the process, half reported that extensive time
demands remained the same. In a few cases,
time spent on evaluation actually increased.
These increases were brought on by either staff
turnover (the process is lengthier for new
teachers) or by the principals spending more
quality time on the evaluations. It appears that
greater understanding of the rubric caused
principals to spend more time in analysis,
though the steps in the process and the number
of items in the rubric to be rated was
unchanged.
Some principals’ Stage 3 Management
concerns began to shift in year three. Now
more familiar with the rubric and processes,
they became aware of troublesome aspects in
the application of the new policies. For
example, student performance data, comprising
half of a teacher’s final rating, combined with
observation scores, became an issue for
teachers in untested grades. The policy stated
that these teachers use school-wide measures
(e.g., graduation rate) as part of their final,
individual summative score. Thus, principals
reported that final scores would not accurately
reflect many teacher assignments or actual
direct influence on students.
Additionally, while principals in year
three reported the evaluation system as more
familiar and comfortable, they increasingly
cited inconsistent and subjective elements.
There were concerns about aligned application
of rubrics and expectations from school to
school, as well as concerns about the
quantitative portion of the final rating. The
effects of this concern were magnified by a
new state policy requiring districts to develop
strategic, differentiated compensation plans,
based on evaluation results. Management
concerns, therefore, coexisted, to some extent,
with early stage personal concerns about being
able to expertly implement such a high-stakes
process, as well as with late stage, refocusing
concerns about fair policy designs.
After three years, principals reported an
appreciation for the contributions of a detailed
teaching rubric to the effectiveness of
instruction and professional collaboration, in
addition to their development of routines and
organizational strategies to help manage the
process and balance their use of time. Demands
on time essentially remained high, however,
and qualms began to emerge about both the
consistency of application and the quantitative
ratings formulas built in to the policies.
Superintendent Supportive Strategies Superintendents, aware of the new time
demands on principals and their concerns about
implementation, engaged in frequent formal
and informal conversations with them to assist
with the management of more challenging
stressors. Such communication and ongoing
contact led to locally supportive solutions. For
example, locally designed training augmented
state training as superintendents and principals
worked together to learn about policy details
and potential negative effects.
In addition, responding to principals’
concerns, superintendents reallocated some
district administrators’ responsibilities,
assigning them to assist with schools’
observation and data entry schedules.
For example, the special education
director observed and evaluated special
education staff in the schools. Such supportive
district interventions were seen by principals as
immediate, specific, and appropriate responses
to their concerns.
19
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Implementation support from
superintendents increased in year two. District
actions included professional development to
further understand the rubric components,
technology-based tools to streamline the
cumbersome reporting process, and increased
time for dialogue at district level meetings.
District office staff continued to assist
with evaluations in year three but the purpose
shifted to having a “second pair of eyes,” for
fairness in evaluation of below average
teachers. This co-observation process was
prompted by state incentive grants that
encouraged the practice. Conversations about
the implementation continued between
superintendents and principals but shifted from
emphasis on the process and the rubric to focus
on the state’s new initiative linking teacher
evaluation with differentiated, performance-
based compensation. Proceeding cautiously,
superintendents initiated committees to study
the policy ramifications and delayed rapid
implementation of untested or potentially
divisive plans. Such collaborative, careful study
was acknowledged and supported by principals
as a wise way to proceed due to previous
unsettling changes in the evaluation system.
Lessons Learned Superintendents play a significant role in
principals’ implementation work. Based on this
study’s findings, principals will likely
experience personal efficacy concerns
regarding their ability to understand and
manage the implementation of teacher
evaluation accountability policies. Principals
may seek support from their superintendents,
particularly if these individuals are committed
to working with them. Superintendent
supportive interventions included frequent,
honest, two-way communication, logistical
help, instructionally focused dialogue and
sensitivity to the new policies’ stressful impact
on principals and their staff. While none of
these strategies might appear out-of-the
ordinary, their reliable presence is essential and
significant, as the relationship between
principals and superintendents in this study
illustrates. Superintendents supported
principals by listening, by arranging
discussions at administrative meetings, and by
continually communicating about the new
evaluation policy’s terms and critical effects.
All principals in this study reported district
officials’ prompt responses to their concerns,
indicating a loosely structured team approach
with supervisors playing more of an assistance,
rather than a compliance-focused, role
(Derrington & Campbell, 2015). Principals
highly valued these types of responses from
their superintendents.
Misunderstood or unaddressed concerns
can derail a change process or degrade potential
results. As Hall and Hord (2015) have
reiterated, if change is not supported and
facilitated, implementers may languish in
ongoing personal and management concerns.
These concerns may prevent principals from
progressing towards more effective teacher
evaluation implementation and a deeper
understanding of the policy.
This study indicates the importance of
district leaders’ supportive interventions,
particularly by acting on early attentiveness to
relational and operational principal concerns
when implementing high-accountability
evaluation policies in the schools. Developing
and maintaining a close working relationship
with principals, aided by open lines of
communication and frequent opportunities for
collaboration, is essential and should stem from
superintendents’ abilities and willingness to
understand and appropriately respond to
concerns without heavy-handed, compliance-
driven tactics. In addition, principals need to
20
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
know their supervisors are well-versed in
policy procedures and their implications.
Thus, knowledge of procedures, open
lines of communication, sensitivity to impacts,
and respect for principals’ concerns appear to
be critical for superintendents to positively
manage a similar change process.
Superintendents’ support of principals
through open, non-judgmental discussion can
provide both a support structure and an
informal, ongoing assessment of principals’
needs during implementation. In addition,
knowledge of the terms, details, and potential
impacts of new policies allows superintendents
to work with principals with a more productive
understanding of the implementation
experience. Such collaboration, in turn, results
in better decision-making and constructive
intervention strategies, leading ultimately to a
more positive long-term outcome. Super-
intendents effectively support principals both
technically and emotionally, by serving as
attentive listeners, acknowledging the pressure
and stress they experience, followed by support
specifically designed to mitigate these
challenges and concerns.
Principals’ responses to change will
likely evolve over time—as delineated in the
Stage of Concern framework—support from
the superintendent must evolve as well. District
leaders must stay involved in the difficult work
over the long term, maintaining effective
support systems as principals continually adjust
practices, identify new concerns, and seek more
effective ways to influence teachers and
generate successful student-learning outcomes.
Author Biographies
Mary Lynne Derrington is an assistant professor in the department of educational leadership and policy
studies at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. A former superintendent and principal, her
research interests include teacher evaluation, supervision, policy implementation, and principal
leadership. E-mail: mderring@utk.edu
John Campbell is director of curriculum and instruction for the Alcoa City Schools, Alcoa TN. He
currently serves as president of the AIMS/TIGER Teacher Evaluation System Board of Directors. His
work and research interests include teacher supervision and evaluation and organizational change.
E-mail: JCampbell@AlcoaSchools.Net
21
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
References
Adamowski, S., & Petrilli, M. (2007). Confronting the autonomy gap. Principal, 87(2), 46-9.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards 2008.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_
policy_standards_2008.pdf
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform:
From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.
Derrington, M. L. (2011). Changes in teacher evaluation: Implications for principals’ work. Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(3), 51–54.
Derrington, M. L. (2014). Teacher evaluation initial policy implementation: Superintendent and
principal perceptions. Planning and Changing. 45(1/2), 120–137.
Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems:
Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change. doi:
10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6
Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2013). The changing conditions of teacher evaluation
accountability measures. In B. G. Barnett, A. R. Shoho, & A. J. Bowers (Eds.), School and
district leadership in an era of accountability (pp. 231–251). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Derrington, M. L., & Larsen, D. (2012). Principal pressure in the middle of accountability. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(4), 65–75.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders (3 rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, G. (2013). Evaluating change processes: Assessing the extent of implementation (constructs,
methods, and implications). Journal of Educational Administration 51(3), 264–289.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple,
external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
22
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Hope, W., & Pigford, A. (2002). The principal’s role in educational policy implementation.
Contemporary Education, 72(1), 44–47.
Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S. (2007). District contributions to school leaders’ sense of
efficacy: A quantitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 735–770.
Lytle, H. (2012). Where is leadership heading? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 54–57.
Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama
education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections
in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477–494.
Peterson, K. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sawchuk, S. (2011). NEA proposes making a shift on evaluation. Education Week, 30(31), 1.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Loyiso, J., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the
middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5),
731–762.
Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1997). The problem of policy implementation: The case of
performance appraisal. School Leadership and Management,17(3), 333–346.
Tennessee Department of Education. (2011). First to the top: Teachers & leaders: Teacher and
principal evaluation. Retrieved from http://tn.gov/firsttothetop/programs-committee.html
West, D., Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. (2010). Limited control and relentless accountability: Examining
historical changes in urban school principal pressure. Journal of School Leadership, 20 (3).
238–266.
23
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Commentary_______________________________________________________________________
School Administrator Quality in Minority-Serving Institutions
Mariela A. Rodríguez, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
University of Texas, San Antonio
San Antonio, TX
Carol A. Mullen, PhD
Professor
College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences
School of Education
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
Tawannah G. Allen, EdD
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
School of Education
High Point University
High Point, NC
Abstract
This commentary brings together the topics of geographically-oriented diversity, minority-serving
institutions, and educational leadership programs. The geospatial context for this discussion about
school administrator quality focuses on Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and historically Black
colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the United States. The authors from representative minority-
serving institutions (MSIs) and a predominately White institution focus on the changing
demographics in school communities and how this trend can be constructively addressed within
public school systems to offer more equitable learning experiences to diverse students. Regarding
nationwide demographic shifts, the very real challenge for superintendents is to lead by working
constructively with changing student populations and rapid generational fluxes more generally.
Key Words
minority-serving institutions, diversity, school leaders, superintendents
24
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Demographic Shifts and the New
Racial Minority
Socially-just school administrators lead effectively by both modeling and practicing
diversity-responsive leadership (Gooden &
Dantley, 2012; Mullen & Robertson, 2014).
Diversity activists seek to understand how
to work constructively with their changing
student populations in a broader context of
rapid generational fluxes. Our thesis is that
school leaders must ensure school
administrator quality wherever they are and
that minority-serving institutions (MSIs)
have a unique responsibility to prepare
school leaders to effectively meet the needs
of culturally diverse students.
Our purpose is to present
information that may not be widely known
about MSIs, specifically Hispanic-serving
institutions (HSIs) and historically Black
colleges and universities (HBCUs) that can
assist K˗12 school leaders and educators in
leading their school communities and
university-level faculty members in
effectively preparing school leaders. Most
children and youth in the nation are racial
minorities (U.S. Department of Commerce,
2013)—a fact that informs all constituents’
work.
Race scholars argue that school
administrators must stay on top of
demographic shifts if they are to create
equitable and just schools for marginalized
student populations (Gooden & Dantley,
2012). This transition in geographic
demographics is expected to have an
unprecedented effect on MSIs. In fact, by
2042, demographic forecasts indicate that
racial minority groups will be the majority
population in the U.S. Hispanic and Black
Americans will comprise 45% of the 2060
population, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s demographic projection (endorsed
by the Taylor and the Pew Research Center,
2014)]. An estimated 38 million immigrants
live in the United States, constituting over
13% of its population (Shields, 2013). Such
demographic changes beg the question: Do
superintendents and other school leaders
know who the students are in their
jurisdictions and what knowledge and
experiences they bring to classrooms?
(Shields, 2013)
The changing face of the nation
reinforces the value of learning how
educational leadership programs in HSIs and
HBCUs prepare aspiring principals to tackle
challenges of demographic diversity, aspiring
to provide students with more equitable
learning experiences. This issue is of
importance to superintendents because the
principals of tomorrow will be working in their
school districts, and these principals must be
prepared to enact effective instructional
opportunities for all students, specifically those
from minority backgrounds and challenging
circumstances such as poverty and mobility
(Sherman & Grogan, 2003).
Guiding Questions and Organization For this discussion we have asked ourselves
how the physical location of HSIs and
HBCUs supports diversity-responsive
leadership. We are also wondering how
their geospatial realities connect to
problems of practice that public school
leaders (and their constituents) face in these
regions. An influx of English Learners,
high student mobility rates, and low
25
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
graduation rates comprises this changing
context. This piece is organized around
demographic changes, the relevant
literature, and issues of geospatial location,
extending to implications for collaboration
and preparation, institutional outreach, and
steps forward.
Literature Touchstones Students in U.S. public schools from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more
populous throughout the nation in various
areas. Allen (2006), Noguera (2003), and
Suttmiller and González (2006) have all studied
such students’ schooling experiences, with
Allen (2006) emphasizing the resiliency they
display, Noguera (2003) shedding light on the
often-ineffective educational experiences of
African American male youth, and Suttmiller
and González (2006) identifying the crucial
role of academic mentoring.
As many researchers who study poverty
and disenfranchised communities attest, all
students benefit from effective and supportive
learning environments and school leaders
whose principal preparation programs had a
focus on inclusiveness to strengthen their
commitment to success for children and youth
(e.g., English, Papa, Mullen, & Creighton,
2012; Tienken & Orlich, 2013).
Gooden and Dantley’s (2012) idea of
diversity-responsive leadership is that it should
orient school leaders to take action by
developing and implementing “a leadership
preparation framework centered on race” (p.
240). One characteristic of the framework is
self-reflection, which motivates transformative
action. (The other four characteristics are
critical theory; future-oriented, practical ideas;
praxis [i.e., action-informed mindfulness], and
race language.) School leaders can use any of
these attributes for educating educators,
students, and other constituents. In this manner
leaders can adapt the types of practices they
expect can yield positive results for their own
student populations.
Moore and colleagues (2011) fittingly
describe various ways in which professional
educators have guided youth to become more
self-directed, reflective citizens. By gaining
voice and exercising their authority and
advocacy, youth develop valued skills (e.g.,
public speaking) and optimism (such as about
their future).
Examples include contributing to school
governance through participating in making
decisions that facilitate curricular and school
improvements, experiencing leadership training
for their careers and public advocacy roles, and
vocalizing policy concerns that affect
education. The Urban Youth Collaborative, the
Philadelphia Student Union, Future of
Tomorrow, and the Youth Education Alliance
are just a few such initiatives making it onto the
national scene (Moore et al., 2011).
Thus, principals must attune to the
sociocultural dynamics of their particular
communities, as Khalifa’s (2012) ethnography
of a school leader attests. Accordingly, because
of their developing understanding of affected
children and youth—whose environmental
conditions for learning, including health, are
serious issues (Mullen, 2014)—they can make
better decisions about student learning
practices.
Educational institutions and leadership
programs that commit vigorously to improving
the future of historically marginalized groups
expand their dialogue and efforts to be
inclusive (Mullen, Young, & Harris, 2014). In
this vein, faculty members in MSIs focus on
enhancing educational opportunities for
children and youth in varied sociocultural
26
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
contexts (Gasman, 2013; Gasman, Baez, &
Turner, 2008; Mullen et al., 2014). HBCUs
play a “pivotal role in improving the lives of
Black Americans since their inception during a
time of racial segregation” (Gasman, 2013,
para. 3).
The term HBCU came into existence in
1964 through the Civil Rights Act, but several
colleges were founded in the late 1800s;
demographic shifts of HBCUs, founded with
the mission of serving African American
students, are relevant to public education at a
national level (U.S. Department of Education,
1991). Currently, HBCU principal preparation
programs are tasked with preparing school
leaders to lead socially-just schools.
Geospatial Location of MSIs Online searches for MSIs in the United States
found that most HSIs are located in the
southwestern states and most HBCUs in the
eastern states, which makes these institutions
historically situated, if not geospatially isolated.
Further refining the search of each university
campus, we found that over 100 of these
institutions offered master’s degrees and/or
doctoral degrees in educational leadership.
As per the amended Title V of the
Higher Education Act (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006), HSIs are 2-and 4-year
colleges and universities with a full-time
equivalent undergraduate student enrollment
that is at least 25% Hispanic. Of the over 300
HSIs in the U.S. (HACU, 2011˗2012), only
seventy-one are four year universities that offer
graduate programs in educational leadership.
These institutions are located within ten states,
primarily along the south and southwest
regions of the nation (see Figure 1).
27
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Figure 1: Hispanic-serving institutions offering master’s and doctoral degrees in educational
leadership.
Source: The Authors, 2014; an original adaptation of HACU’s [2011–2012] basic map
HSIs dotting the southwestern United
States include California and Texas, with large
numbers of immigrant students and English
learners (Chapa & De La Rosa, 2004). This
student population has academic and linguistic
needs requiring specific types of lesson
planning, thus it is imperative that principal
preparation programs in these geographic areas
support those needs (Suttmiller & Gonzalez,
2006). School–university partnerships are
warranted for improving educational outcomes
for these diverse student groups (Rodríguez,
González, & Garza, 2013).
Superintendents’ support within such
partnerships would help to generate a “grow
your own” principal preparation program.
Diversity-oriented outreach initiatives could
yield pools of administrators specially trained
to lead schools with large culturally and
linguistically diverse student populations. Such
educators and leaders would benefit from up-
to-date diversity training, fluency in Spanish,
and relevant travel experience. In diversity
workshops, school leaders can learn to identify
as well as overcome ways in which they have
been socialized to react to their students’ social
behaviors and learning approaches based on
their own learning experiences, assumptions,
and perceptions.
Regarding HBCUs, of the over 90
HBCUs in the U.S., 29 are 4-year institutions
that offer graduate programs in educational
28
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
leadership. These institutions are located in 13
states, primarily in the south and southeast
regions of the U.S. (Google Maps, n.d.; see
Figure 2).
Figure 2: Black colleges and universities historically offering master’s and doctoral degrees in
educational leadership.
Source: The Authors, 2014; an original adaptation of Google Map’s [n.d.] basic map
29
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
HBCUs along the eastern U.S. are
also located in states experiencing increases
in students whose first language is not
English. Statistics compiled by the U.S.
Department of Education (2006) indicate
that Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina have seen the largest increases in
the school-age English learner population:
292%, 372%, and 714%, respectively. Such
evidence strongly suggests that
superintendents in these states must find
ways to address the academic needs of their
changing student populations (Rodríguez &
Shefelbine, 2010).
Collaboration and Preparation for
Social Justice As pointed out, MSIs are located in very
specific areas of the nation (Gasman, 2013;
Gasman, Baez, & Turner, 2008). This reality
makes evident the need for administrators
and faculty from predominantly White
institutions to connect with faculty at MSIs
to, for example, encourage joining
educational leadership programs and
professional organizations.
The opportunity exists for greater
impact upon graduate schools in their
university leadership role concerning student
diversity as well. Consider that the Council
of Graduate Schools (2009) found that
students from ethnic minorities have less
representation in graduate education than
their White counterparts. Ahead of the curve
will be faculty and other educators who
collaborate with MSIs, whether to recruit
graduate students (i.e., aspiring school
leaders) or prepare for a much more diverse
culture in higher education. All such efforts
should be usefully documented and
disseminated so that civic communities can
benefit from each other.
The call to revise preparation
programs for relevance to current practice
(Mattocks & Drake, 2003; Tucker, Young,
& Koschoreck, 2012) involves moving
beyond traditional course offerings.
Schoolwide transformation that is not only
curricular or operational but also cultural
must be addressed to raise consciousness for
the purpose of making school cultures
equitable (Brooks & Witherspoon-Arnold,
2013; Mullen et al., 2014; Tienken & Orlich,
2013).
Making preparation programs in
educational administration relevant to the
job demands of school administrators is a
specific concern in regard to preparing
school leaders in HSIs and HBCUs.
It is imperative that promising
practices for supporting traditionally
marginalized students become an integral
part of school leadership preparation in
MSIs. School leaders serving as advocates
for underserved students can inform
decision-making by building on existing
knowledge for these students (Rodríguez &
Alanís, 2011).
By supporting diverse students’
social needs beyond their traditional
academic needs, principals demonstrate
concern for student well-being, not just
academic success (Mullen, 2014). This
leadership capability stems from
demonstration of characteristics, such as an
informed activist orientation, of school
leaders who have firsthand knowledge of
their communities and constituencies
(Gooden & Dantley, 2012).
As such it is a responsibility of
principal preparation programs in HBCUs
and HSIs to ensure that future school leaders
30
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
are prepared with the know-how of
understanding their changing constituents
and, more than this, enacting social justice
on their campuses. Superintendents play a
critical role in ensuring that principals are
trained to carry out initiatives that support
the learning of diverse student groups. They
can position their schools for success by
articulating and modelling the expected
values, as well as making available to
principals the professional development and
resources (e.g., bilingual training for
teachers) needed for seeing initiatives to
fruition.
Institutional Outreach for Activist
Superintendents Institutional diversity with respect to the
cultural and ethnic diversity of educators in
taking root in places that influence the
purview of superintendents, specifically the
principalship pipeline they rely on for hiring
leaders in their buildings.
Of note, the numbers of minority
faculty who work in higher education have
increased in educational leadership positions
nationwide (Hackman & McCarthy, 2011),
which is a sign of institutional diversity as a
mindset and core value, as is the mission of
universities to expand their diversity
portfolios to include the work of all faculty
that reflects support of historically
marginalized and nontraditional student
populations, and diversity of many other
kinds.
Aligned with this change, the
National Council of Professors of
Educational Administration taskforce coined
“pedagogically-centered leadership”
(English et al., 2012, p. 105) to make the
point that knowledge of learning and
teaching that encompasses cultural
differences that span individuals, cultures,
and institutions is a much-needed
disposition. Diversity-responsive leaders
have these attractive qualifications.
For district superintendents, the
focus on pedagogically-centered leadership
is taken up with an emphasis on learning and
an awareness that it has been shifting over
time. With these shifts, learning has
achieved a premium over traditional forms
of teaching; however, the craft of teaching
as a skilled profession continues to be highly
valued, and performance-based assessments
of teaching remain essential (English et al.,
2012).
Leadership diversity training
resources, such as workshops and modules
examine quality preparation and the
professional development of leaders.
Trainings and applications from a
pedagogical focus and social justice
orientation, geared towards school
leadership, include the scholarship of
Shields (2013) and the organizational work
of the University Council for Educational
Administration (2014).
Importantly, superintendents have
communicated value for ongoing
development and collaborative learning, and
specifically for students, educators, and
leaders to learn from one another, which we
think reflects some aspects of
pedagogically-centered leadership;
specifically, they have expressed value for
collaboration at all levels of the system,
which, based on profound cultural changes
within their own districts, they believe
fosters “collective capacity for change” and
31
______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
new directions for growth (Dulaney,
Hallam, & Wall, 2013, p. 40).
In regard to geographic institutional
diversity and preparing future leaders and
educators, MSIs play a crucial role in
advancing communities of professional
educators facing growing student diversity.
It is timely for educators and administrators
in K-12 school districts and within
university-based principal and executive
preparation programs, as well as
professional organizations, to foster
programmatic opportunities by tapping
institutions that can help diversify their
communities. The pipeline for staffing
schools and future leadership extends to
MSIs.
Steps Forward A strong need exists for showcasing MSIs to
help educate more broadly as well as foster
“solidarity and collaboration” across and
beyond these institutions (Gasman, 2013,
para. 6). In this vein, institutions of higher
education and school districts can develop
partnerships to undertake this work. Such
partnerships can revitalize the collaborative
learning of district leaders that builds on the
contributions of MSIs that are preparing
aspiring school principals to serve students
in their local communities.
More than likely, at least some
visionary and activist superintendents, as but
one important constituent group, would find
value in this new type of collaboration
beyond their own geospatial borders.
Research reveals district-level support of
collaborative cultures and forward
momentum (e.g., Dulaney et al., 2013)—
readiness of engagement with MSIs is a next
step. This can occur through outreach and
collaborative projects, as well as by
recruiting graduates from MSIs and staffing
schools with diverse professional educators
and leaders.
Finally, a call to action has the
potential to elevate the awareness of campus
and district administrators to effectively
meet the needs of diverse learners. Without
a doubt, knowing the students in one’s
jurisdiction as a school leader is essential
and being prepared through trainings that
support being part of a prepared leadership
(and faculty) to work in a changing
environment is a vital step for achieving this
outcome.
District and school leaders can tap
the resources we have cited that are
available through professional associations
and the education literature. We also
encourage practitioners to reach out to
faculty in educational leadership programs
in MSIs (geographically mapped herein)
who are ready to offer culturally-relevant
instruction in the form of professional
development for teachers and
administrators. More diversity-responsive
leaders should be in administrative roles
guiding the educational goals and outcomes
of the changing populations of students for
whom they have responsibility.
32
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a national conference. Citation:
Rodriguez, M. A., & Mullen, C. A. (2014, November). Making a collective impact on the
profession by preparing principals at minority-serving institutions. Paper presented at the
University Council for Educational Administration, Washington, DC.
We thank Angela Elkrody (graduate assistant) of the National Council of Professors of
Educational Administration for technical assistance with Figures 1 and 2.
Author Biographies
Mariela Rodríguez is associate professor of educational leadership at the University of Texas at San
Antonio. Her research focuses on school leadership and bilingual education. She serves on the
executive council of the University Council for Educational Administration. E-mail:
Mariela.Rodriguez@utsa.edu
Carol Mullen is professor of educational leadership at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. She is
currently a U.S. Fulbright Scholar whose work is in China. Her research focuses on mentoring and
social justice leadership. Her authorships encompass more than 200 refereed journal articles and book
chapters, as well as 20 academic books, including Shifting to Fit (2014) and The Leadership Identity
Journey (2014). E-mail: camullen@vt.edu
Tawannah Allen is an associate professor at High Point University in educational leadership. Her
research focuses on success for all children, especially African-American and Latino males. She is
actively involved in a University of North Carolina system-wide panel of experts on K-12 educational
reform. E-mail: tallen@uncfsu.edu
33
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
References
Allen, T. (2006). Resiliency among African-American male students. In F. Brown & R. C.
Hunter (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and other federal program for urban school districts (pp.
201-229). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group.
Brooks, J. S., & Witherspoon-Arnold, N. (2013). Confronting racism in higher education:
Problems and possibilities for fighting ignorance, bigotry and isolation. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Chapa, J., & De La Rosa, B. (2004). Latino population growth, socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics, and implications for educational attainment. Education and Urban
Society, 36(2), 130-149.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009, January 1). Broadening participation in graduate
education. Retrieved from
http://www.cgsnet.org/broadening-participation-graduate-education-0
Dulaney, S. K., Hallam, P. R., & Wall, G. (2013). Superintendent perceptions of multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS): Obstacles and opportunities for school system reform. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 10(2), 30-45. Retrieved from
http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/AASA_Journal_of_Scholarship_and_
Practice/JSP_Summer2013.final.pdf
English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050:
Conjectures, challenges and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Gasman, M. (2013, March 3). Time for minority-serving institutions to think globally. Retrieved from
http://diverseeducation.com/article/51666/#
Gasman, M., Baez, B., & Turner, C. S. V. (2008). Understanding minority-serving institutions. New
York: SUNY.
Gooden, M. A., & Dantley, M. (2012). Centering race in a framework for leadership preparation.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(2), 237-253.
Google Maps. (n.d.). Map of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU). Retrieved from
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105498859145129241
400.00046ac1a1d2e74636922
Hackman, D. G., & McCarthy, M. M. (2011). At a crossroads: The educational leadership
professoriate in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
34
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). (2011–2012). List of Hispanic Serving
Institutions 2011–2012. Retrieved from http://www.hacu.net/hacu/HSIs.asp
Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as
community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424-467.
Mattocks, T. C., & Drake, D. D. (2003). The preparation of visionary leaders for practitioner
roles: A challenge for graduate programs in educational administration and school
organizations. AASA Professor, 24(2), 14-23.
Moore, J., Dzurinko, N., McCants, J., Stith, J., McDonald, C. A., Geigel, J., & Pinguel, F.
(2011). Youth organizing for education reform. Voices in Urban Education. Retrieved from
http://annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/product/197/files/VUE30.pdf
Mullen, C. A. (2014). Advocacy for child wellness in high-poverty environments. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 50(4), 157-163. DOI:10.1080/00228958.2014.960336
Mullen, C. A., & Robertson, K. C. (2014). Shifting to fit: The politics of Black and White identity in
school leadership. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Mullen, C. A., Young, J. K., & Harris, S. (2014). Cultural dialogue as social justice advocacy within
and beyond university classrooms. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook
of educational leadership and social [in]justice (pp. 1145-1168, volume 2). New York:
Springer.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental
and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban
Education, 38(4), 431-459.
Rodríguez, M. A., & Alanís, I. (2011). Negotiating linguistic and cultural identity: One
borderlander’s leadership initiative. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(1),
103-117.
Rodríguez, M. A., González, M. L., & Garza, E., Jr. (2013). Meeting the needs of Hispanic students in
public schools: Implications for principal preparation. In B. Gastic, & R. R. Verdugo. (Eds.),
The education of the Hispanic population: Selected essays (pp. 187-200). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Rodríguez, M. A., & Shefelbine, J. R. (2010). Border students as culture brokers: District
leadership supporting a value-added language program. Border-Lines, IV, 139-158.
35
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Sherman, W., & Grogan, M. (2003). Superintendents’ responses to the achievement gap: An
ethical critique. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 6(3),
223-237.
Shields, C. M. (2013). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain and
complex world. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Suttmiller, E. F., & González, M. L. (2006). Successful school leadership for English language
learners. In K. Tellez & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English
language learners: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 167-188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, P., and the Pew Research Center. (2014). The next America. New York: Pew Research Center.
Tienken, C. H., & Orlich, D. C. (2013). The school reform landscape: Fraud, myth, and lies.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Tucker, P. D., Young, M. D., & Koschoreck, J. W. (2012). Leading research-based change in
educational leadership preparation: An introduction. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 7(2), 155–171.
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). (2014). Posts from preparation. Retrieved
from http://www.ucea.org/resource_category/preparation/
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2013). Census data. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/cac/race_ethnic_advisory_committees/docs/2004_Nov_Recomme
ndations_AIAN.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). Historically Black Colleges and Universities and higher
education desegregation. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9511.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/title5legislation.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Title III, Part B: Strengthening historically Black colleges and
universities program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3b/index.html
36
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Mission and Scope, Copyright, Privacy, Ethics, Upcoming Themes, Author Guidelines &
Publication Timeline
The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice is a refereed, blind-reviewed, quarterly journal with a
focus on research and evidence-based practice that advance the profession of education administration.
Mission and Scope The mission of the Journal is to provide peer-reviewed, user-friendly, and methodologically sound
research that practicing school and district administrations can use to take action and that higher
education faculty can use to prepare future school and district administrators. The Journal publishes
accepted manuscripts in the following categories: (1) Evidence-based Practice, (2) Original Research,
(3) Research-informed Commentary, and (4) Book Reviews.
The scope for submissions focus on the intersection of five factors of school and district
administration: (a) administrators, (b) teachers, (c) students, (d) subject matter, and (e) settings. The
Journal encourages submissions that focus on the intersection of factors a-e. The Journal discourages
submissions that focus only on personal reflections and opinions.
Copyright Articles published by AASA, The School Superintendents Association (AASA) in the AASA Journal of
Scholarship and Practice fall under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs
3.0 license policy (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Please refer to the policy for
rules about republishing, distribution, etc. In most cases our readers can copy, post, and distribute
articles that appear in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, but the works must be attributed
to the author(s) and the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice. Works can only be distributed for
non-commercial/non-monetary purposes. Alteration to the appearance or content of any articles used is
not allowed. Readers who are unsure whether their intended uses might violate the policy should get
permission from the author or the editor of the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice.
Authors please note: By submitting a manuscript the author/s acknowledge that the submitted
manuscript is not under review by any other publisher or society, and the manuscript represents
original work completed by the authors and not previously published as per professional ethics based
on APA guidelines, most recent edition. By submitting a manuscript, authors agree to transfer without
charge the following rights to AASA, its publications, and especially the AASA Journal of Scholarship
and Practice upon acceptance of the manuscript. The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice is
indexed by several services and is also a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. This
means there is worldwide access to all content. Authors must agree to first worldwide serial
publication rights and the right for the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice and AASA to grant
permissions for use of works as the editors judge appropriate for the redistribution, repackaging, and/or
marketing of all works and any metadata associated with the works in professional indexing and
reference services. Any revenues received by AASA and the AASA Journal of Scholarship and
Practice from redistribution are used to support the continued marketing, publication, and distribution
of articles.
37
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Privacy The names and e-mail addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated
purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Please note that the journal is available, via the Internet at no cost, to audiences around the world.
Authors’ names and e-mail addresses are posted for each article. Authors who agree to have their
manuscripts published in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice agree to have their names and
e-mail addresses posted on their articles for public viewing.
Ethics The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice uses a double-blind peer-review process to maintain
scientific integrity of its published materials. Peer-reviewed articles are one hallmark of the scientific
method and the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice believes in the importance of maintaining
the integrity of the scientific process in order to bring high quality literature to the education leadership
community. We expect our authors to follow the same ethical guidelines. We refer readers to the latest
edition of the APA Style Guide to review the ethical expectations for publication in a scholarly journal.
Upcoming Themes and Topics of Interest
Below are themes and areas of interest for publication cycles.
1. Governance, Funding, and Control of Public Education 2. Federal Education Policy and the Future of Public Education 3. Federal, State, and Local Governmental Relationships 4. Teacher Quality (e.g., hiring, assessment, evaluation, development, and compensation of teachers)
5. School Administrator Quality (e.g., hiring, preparation, assessment, evaluation, development, and compensation of principals and other school administrators)
6. Data and Information Systems (for both summative and formative evaluative purposes) 7. Charter Schools and Other Alternatives to Public Schools 8. Turning Around Low-Performing Schools and Districts 9. Large scale assessment policy and programs 10. Curriculum and instruction 11. School reform policies 12. Financial Issues
Submissions
Length of manuscripts should be as follows: Research and evidence-based practice articles between
2,800 and 4,800 words; commentaries between 1,600 and 3,800 words; book and media reviews
between 400 and 800 words. Articles, commentaries, book and media reviews, citations and references
are to follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, latest edition.
Permission to use previously copyrighted materials is the responsibility of the author, not the AASA
Journal of Scholarship and Practice.
Potential contributors should include in a cover sheet that contains (a) the title of the article, (b)
contributor’s name, (c) terminal degree, (d) academic rank, (e) department and affiliation (for inclusion
38
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
on the title page and in the author note), (f) address, (g) telephone and fax numbers, and (h) e-mail
address. Authors must also provide a 120-word abstract that conforms to APA style and a 40-word
biographical sketch. The contributor must indicate whether the submission is to be considered original
research, evidence-based practice article, commentary, or book or media review. The type of
submission must be indicated on the cover sheet in order to be considered. Articles are to be submitted
to the editor by e-mail as an electronic attachment in Microsoft Word.
Book Review Guidelines
Book review guidelines should adhere to the author guidelines as found above. The format of the book
review is to include the following:
Full title of book
Author
City, state: publisher, year; page; price
Name and affiliation of reviewer
Contact information for reviewer: address, country, zip or postal code, e-mail address, telephone and fax
Date of submission
Additional Information and Publication Timeline
Contributors will be notified of editorial board decisions within eight weeks of receipt of papers at the
editorial office. Articles to be returned must be accompanied by a postage-paid, self-addressed
envelope.
The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice reserves the right to make minor editorial changes
without seeking approval from contributors.
Materials published in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice do not constitute endorsement of
the content or conclusions presented.
The Journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and Cabell’s Directory of Publishing
Opportunities. Articles are also archived in the ERIC collection.
Publication Schedule:
Issue Deadline to Submit
Articles
Notification to Authors
of Editorial Review Board
Decisions
To AASA for
Formatting
and Editing
Issue Available
on
AASA website
Spring October 1 January 1 February 15 April 1
Summer February 1 April 1 May 15 July1
Fall May 1 July 1 August 15 October 1
Winter August 1 October 1 November 15 January 15
39
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Editors Christopher H. Tienken, EdD
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Submit articles electronically: christopher.tienken@shu.edu
To contact by postal mail:
Dr. Christopher Tienken
Assistant Professor
College of Education and Human Services
Department of Education Leadership, Management, and Policy
Seton Hall University
Jubilee Hall Room 405
400 South Orange Avenue
South Orange, NJ 07079
Kenneth Mitchell, EdD
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
Submit articles electronically: kenneth.mitchell@mville.edu
To contact by postal mail:
Dr. Ken Mitchell
Associate Professor
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership
School of Education
Manhattanville College
2900 Purchase Street
Purchase, NY 10577
40
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
AASA Resources
Learn about AASA’s books program where new titles and special discounts are available to AASA members. The AASA publications catalog may be downloaded at
www.aasa.org/books.aspx.
Join AASA and discover a number of resources reserved exclusively for members. Visit www.aasa.org/Join.aspx. Questions? Contact C.J. Reid at creid@aasa.org.
Upcoming AASA Events
2016 National Conference, Feb. 11-13, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz., Phoenix Convention Center. For direct, easy access about the conference, go to www.aasa.org/NCE
Orange Frog Workshops Shawn Achor brings the Happiness Advantage|Orange Frog Workshop to AASA. A
positive engaged brain is the greatest competitive advantage in the modern economy. It
is essential in rapidly changing environments and is needed today more than ever
before. That is why companies are lining up to schedule THIS workshop and why we
are finally bringing it to a public format. The Happiness Advantage/Orange Frog
workshop provides a blueprint for increasing employee engagement and tapping into
people's intrinsic motivations.
This workshop has been credited with raising engagement scores, increasing
levels of optimism and well-being, reducing stress and producing record breaking
financial results. Harvard Business Review puts Shawn Achor on its cover and his TED
Talk is among the top 20 of all-time.
If your team is not fully maxed out with positivity, don't miss this unique
opportunity to experience The Happiness Advantage at work and meet Shawn Achor.
October 20-21, 2015 - Orange Frog Public Workshop
AASA Headquarters 1615 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. 2-
day workshop with the 3rd day (Oct. 22, 2015) an optional day for [training trainers as
part of] the 1st step towards becoming certified as a certified trainer of HA|OF
November 10-11, 2015 -Orange Frog Public Workshop
QLN Conference Center, Mozart Room, 1938 Avenida Del Oro, Oceanside, CA 92056,
10 a.m. to 3 p.m.2-day workshop with the 3rd day (Nov. 12, 2015) an optional day for
[training trainers as part of] the 1st step towards becoming certified as a certified trainer
of HA|OF
2017 National Conference, March 2-4, 2017, New Orleans, LA, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center