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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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:

[email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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 [email protected].

 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