Wednesday, February 19, 2014

State Affiliate Operation and Directory

February 2014 NCPEA Blog
Dr. Carleton R. Holt, President-Elect & Executive Board Member
Dr. Pauline Sampson, Executive Board Member
State Affiliate Operation and Directory

At the NCPEA Annual Summer Conference in the Meadowlands, New Jersey, the State Affiliate gathering was held in the ballroom on Tuesday, August 6, 2014.  Dr. Pauline Sampson welcomed attendees, reminding those from states not already organized that NCPEA has a State Affiliate Website Section located at http://ncpeaprofessor.org/wp-admin/&reauth=1/ncpea-affiliates/ with twelve states identified.  If your state is organized you can contact Angela Elkordy, aelkordy@emich.edu, to add your NCPEA institutional affiliate information.

Pauline introduced Dr. Carleton Holt from Arkansas who shared their website information while reviewing their organizational purpose, development of constitution, by-laws, and connections with established committees of the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, the Secretary of Education, and legislative committees.  Other affiliates may also use this website at http://arpea.uark.edu/ as an example for developing similar operations with other institutions in their home states.

Dr. Ted Creighton at tcreigh@vt.edu reported that NCPEA will publish a state journal for $450.  We have nine state contacts in the research directory.  While enjoying refreshments the following representatives shared information about their State's operation:

Michigan stated that they have 18 institutions with educational leadership prep programs.  Michigan reported on  a successful virtual graduate symposium for their students to present and get feedback on research papers.  They feel the need for a new website and are working on redoing their by-laws.  They have a representative from the state who is at their meetings every time.   They have changed standards and done crosswalks for certifications.  Alternative certification is most challenging now.  It is time consuming and takes away from the programs.  They are working with the Wallace Foundation for outreach.  They also are going to professional meetings to have a presence.  They are looking at teacher leadership as part of the education leadership.  They have 14 institutions with educational leadership.  They use credit cards for membership.  They have two meetings each year with 200 members last year.

Oregon has nine institutions with educational leadership programs.  They have contracted with Concordia.  They have been able to work with the Commissioner to make sure they are at the table.

Texas reported that they have a journal which is published three times a year and that they meet two times a year and present in conjunction with two state major conferences of Texas Association of School Administrators and Texas Association of School Boards.

Florida has new accountability standards.  They are using the value added for school principals.   Since graduates take awhile to get administration positions, their concerns are alternate routes to certification.  School districts such as Miami Dade may do own programs of certification.  Therefore the numbers at public universities with educational leadership programs are down.  Teachers are not given increases in salary stipends unless they go into administration.  Universities are not hiring as many tenure track positions.

Ohio is similar to Florida in concerns.  They are watching conservative ideas from Race to the Top.  The number of students in the Master’s programs is decreasing. The teacher leader endorsement has picked up.

New York stated that they had 56 institutions with education leadership programs working together on a presentation.

California is working on a fall conference and inviting doctoral students to come and do poster presentations.  Darling Hammond is their State Teacher Credential Person who recommends administrator performance expectations.  They no longer have opportunities for teachers to just take an exam in order to get an administrator certification.  They will be hosting NCPEA in 2014 in Channel Islands.

Virginia has 19 institutions that have educational leadership programs.  They are loosely organized.  They have two meetings each year.  They are realigning their competencies and had to send all their syllabi to the state to make sure the courses connect with the state.  They have a new principal evaluation instrument.  They are working on the superintendent assessment.  They have some in-service during each meeting.

Alabama has 14 institutions in the state that have educational leadership programs.  They have planned activities for the year.  They have started advisory councils to discuss issues that impact the programs.  Their fall meeting had record attendance.  They also have a spring conference with more graduate students presenting.  They will have a journal published in spring 2014 by NCPEA.  They publish two newsletters each year.   They are working with the governor who has started to use their organization to insure that memos are sent to all institutions.

The next scheduled NCPEA State Affiliate Meeting is planned during the California Summer Conference to be held on Friday, August 8, 2014 from 8:00-9:15 am on the campus of California State University – Channel Islands in Camarillo, California.  So, come for the Continental Breakfast that morning at 7:30 am, and then share your state’s information with others in attendance.
If this review of NCPEA’s State Affiliate information appears to be of value to circumstances occurring in your location, please consider talking with other institutions in your state, taking a look at the Arkansas Professors of Educational Administration’s website, and start a joint effort to meet the challenges facing Educational Leadership Programs of Study.

Sincerely,

Carleton R. Holt

Monday, January 6, 2014

Gender Equity and Leadership: The Need for Further Conversations

Pauline Sampson
Associate Professor
Stephen F. Austin State University


            The conversation on gender equity in leadership positions is still needed.  A recent news report on December 11, 2013 on the ABC news gave information that women still experience bias in hiring (ABC news, 2013).  According to this report women perceive that they have not received jobs because of their gender.  The report then described a hiring experiment conducted at Yale University on interviews with a man and woman actors answering exactly the same way.  Observers of the interviews were asked to determine who they would hire and evaluate the interviewees.  The majority chose the man to hire and stated they found the woman more aggressive, less likable, and less likely to get the job.

            The conversations on equity are an important topic for educational leadership preparation programs as we guide and instruct future leaders of schools and organizations. Educational leadership programs are complex groups within the larger complex organization of the colleges and universities.  As professors of other leaders, it is important to stay in touch with the current needs and trends in the schools.  Professors also lead the research and conversations on changes and equity issues in education.  Gender equity continues to need research.  As I examine the steady, but slow growth of more women leading our schools as superintendents, I realized that there also has been slow growth in women as leaders of our colleges and universities.  The discussion is still needed on why women may not be choosing a career as the presidents of colleges and universities.  Or why women are not proceeding faster into these high profile positions of superintendents and university presidents.

            As I explored gender equity in the high profile positions, I examined my own state of Texas.  Texas was slightly worse than the nation for gender equity at public universities’ highest position. Twenty nine public universities in Texas showed that seven were led by females (24%) and 22 were led by males (76%).  The majority of the presidents of the Texas universities were white males, which is consistent with the nation.  Two of the seven universities with women presidents in Texas have women that are retiring this year. National figures for college and university presidents show that most are led by white males (ACENET, 2012).  ACENET also found that there has been growth in women holding the highest leadership position from 23% in 2006 to 26% in 2011.  But that means that there are still 74% of the universities led by males.

            As we explore women in leadership, it may help to look back to women’s experiences at the undergraduate leadership opportunities to gain some insight into future women’s leadership aspirations. One research report that  looked at the early leadership of women in undergraduate was conducted at Princeton University (Princeton, 2011). Princeton studied leaders of different groups within universities and found fewer were led by females. Further, this study asked the question, whether women were choosing less high profile positions at the university?  They suggested that men were quicker to speak up while women reflected longer prior to answering or speaking out.  Perhaps the men were then seen as choosing to want the leadership more.

            This Princeton report suggested that there continues to be a need to talk openly about gender and leadership.  As I talk with others about gender issues and leadership, I hear a wide variety of stances.  Some feel there is no longer a need to discuss equity as women have access to all positions. Others state the support of networking and how differently either gender approaches the networking for advancements.  Some say that women are underselling themselves (Princeton University, 2011, p. 7).  Additionally, when women do aspire and reach to prominent leadership positions whether in school districts or universities, then stereotypes may need to be further examined carefully.  

            A reason that people might not select the president or superintendent as a career path is because of the increasing demands of the high profile jobs. Men and women to not choose the high stress jobs with demands for higher student performance with less resources, or demands to find additional resources (Zagier, 2013). Previous research on women in leadership roles examined women leaders as being successful because they held certain attributes such as risk takers with strong ambitions to succeed and abstract reasoning skills (Laff, 2007).  Other researchers identified the discrimination practices in the workplace that caused fewer women to succeed (Duehr & Bono, 2006; Eagly & Carli, 2007).

            Looking toward the administration at colleges and universities, there are many reasons why women may not be choosing or obtaining the president position. There has been some suggestions that there needs to be more role models in the field for other women so they will choose to apply for the lead positions in school districts and universities. Additionally, women may not network as well or position themselves in positions that lead to the presidency.  Some people have suggested that women have to balance work and family more. 

            One blog from a New York Times’ article shows different reactions to gender bias in leadership.  A blog from the New York Times’ article, “Gender Bias: Elite women put new spin on old debate” showed a wide variety of responses. An article by Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former State Department Executive, stated that the workplace needs to change if women are to have families and also find success as executives (Slaughter, 2012).  Conversely, Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook executive, advocated that women can have families and also be successful in executive positions with no change to the workplace but rather they need to be aware of how women are viewed in striving for leadership positions (Sandberg, 2013). The dialogue between bloggers showed one common theme of the difficult balance between careers and family. The attention on women executive is still shifting for how to balance family life with work and how this affects women school executives as well as barriers for women obtaining leadership positions. Further, the blog had a high response rate of women sharing their own experiences on work and its effect on their families with a sense that many women are not in executive roles in the work place because they choose not to be in the highest leadership roles or they are just surviving the demands of work and family. One blog response stated,

Putting in insane hours at work does not always equal being at the very top one percent of one’s profession. Lots of moms (and dads) have to work overtime, or even take more than one job just to make ends meet. Just because you are working … doesn’t mean you are reaping commensurate financial rewards or enjoying a measure of respect.  I guess I’m saying I don’t think the average person who reads the .. and comments on this article  really knows what a typical job is anymore. Things are tough out there and this entire conversation, while important, almost completely sidesteps the concerns of the majority of women with children.  I don’t know what the answer is.

        Another issue related to gender is the different issues that arise based on being a woman. A minority women president suggests that women leaders must deal with different issues than their male colleagues. Knight (2011) shared that only 4% of all college and university presidents are women of color.  She further shared that women who aspire to leadership positions often have to decide on how to position themselves with aspects of their physical attire and looks as well as finding supportive mentors while staying true to their own style and individuality. 

            There may be many reasons for fewer women in the highest level of leadership of school districts and universities.  But the conversation needs to continue if we want to be prepared for a retiring work force that has a majority of white males leading universities and school districts. Additionally, the conversations and research are important for a better understanding of the work place and leadership as it relates to gender.

References

ABC News (December 11, 2013). Women experience surprising bias in the workplace.  Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/women-endure-suprising-bias-workplace-21186867.

ACENET (2012). Leading demographic portrait reveals ongoing challenges in diversity, aging. American Council on Education, March, 12, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACPS-Release-2012.aspx.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally changing?. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 815-846.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62.

Knight, H. J. (2011). From where I sit: Race, gender, and the college presidency. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 40(1). Retrieved from  http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume40_1/fromwhereisit.cfm?section=1

Laff, M. (2007). The invisible wall. T+D, 61(3), 32–38.

Princeton University (March, 2011). Report of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership.  Retrieved from www.princeton.edu/reports/leadership

Sandberg, S. (April, 2013). Sheryl Sandberg, “Lean in” author: When a woman is competent, she doesn’t seem nice enough.  Huffington Post, April 23, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/sheryl-sandberg-lean-in-competent-nice_n_3134913.html

Slaughter, A. M. (July/August, 2012).  Why women still can’t have it all.  The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Zagier, A. S. (2013). College presidents escape leadership pressures by moving to smaller schools.  The Huffington Post, November 3, 2013.  Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/college-presidents-smaller-schools_n_4209873.html

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Leadership Journeys: Paths to Professional Practice

Carol A. Mullen
Past President, NCPEA
Virginia Tech

Do educational leaders experience breathtaking, all-consuming, transformative leadership journeys? Do they see themselves on a journey of growth and development, as humans and as leaders?
If educational leaders intuit that their lives and/or professional journeys/development are on a path, what are some implications for thinking about leadership, conducting research, and preparing future educational leaders?
These are overarching research questions that NCPEA Past Presidents Carol Mullen and Fenwick English are asking in a new book of theirs on the leadership journey as it intersects with the lived experiences of educational leaders, with relevance for the preparation of leaders and the educational leadership field. A primary source of inspiration for this book is American mythologist Joseph Campbell’s description of the university mythic pattern. We think that it very well may have applicability to your experiences as a leader, both in your work and in your life.
General Description of the Journey Theme
The educational leader (i.e., hero) begins in the ordinary world, and receives a call to enter an unknown world of strange powers and events. The leader who accepts the call to enter this strange world must face tasks and trials, either alone or with assistance. In the most intense versions of the narrative, the hero must survive a severe challenge, often with help. If the hero survives, s/he may achieve a great gift or “boon.” The hero must then decide whether to return to the ordinary world with this boon. If the hero does decide to return, s/he often faces challenges on the return journey. If the hero returns successfully, the boon or gift may be used to improve the world (Campbell, 1949/1973).
While Campbell describes 17 stages or steps along this journey, in fact very people (e.g., mythic heroes, educational leaders) experience all 17 stages. These 17 stages can be compressed into the following major phases.

Please share a transformative leadership experience that you have had that could very well contribute to the greater good of our profession. Thank you in advance for your time!
~ Carol Mullen

Specific Description of the Journey’s Phases ~ please comment
Departure deals with the hero's adventure prior to the quest
What call have you accepted (or rejected) in your work as an educational leader that turned out to be a significant decision? What feelings, thoughts, or struggles did you experience during this phase of your leadership journey?

Initiation deals with the hero's many adventures along the way
While on the journey, what experiences did you encounter? Who or what helped you, challenged you, or blocked you? What trials did you undergo? These take the form of a series of tests, tasks, or ordeals that the person must undergo to begin the transformation.

Return deals with the hero’s return home with knowledge and powers acquired on the journey.
What did you experience upon your return home to the ordinary world? What new insight did you gain from your journey? What wisdom did you come to and have you had the opportunity to integrate the wisdom gained on the quest into your work, life, consciousness, or being? Have you shared your wisdom with friends, colleagues, networks, or even the rest of the world?

Reference
Campbell, J. (1949/1973). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
 Press.


Friday, September 6, 2013

Marc Shelton

President, NCPEA

George Fox University


A New Year to Re-flect, Re-think, and Re-conceptualize How We Prepare School Leaders


If you are like me, you have been pulled kicking and screaming from the last days of summer to preparing or perhaps even beginning to teach courses this week.  This is the stuff of life that we know as professors of educational administration – preparing for the important work of our profession mixed with the events of our personal lives attending to day-to-day realities of being fully human.  Within the past month many of us within NCPEA busily moved from teaching summer school sessions, where we work hard and smart to prepare future leaders, to attend to our personal learning and development in the Meadowlands of New Jersey.  There we corporately convened our 67th annual conference led by the NCPEA president Carol Mullen and graciously hosted by a team of professors led by Drs. Gerry Babo and Don Leake through the state affiliate of NJ-NCPEA. 

This summer on the East Coast we listened together to hear perspectives on the important work we do, to share stories of what is working in our classrooms, to present the results of our research, and to be challenged to lead our profession into the future through writing, teaching, speaking, and serving.  We were refreshed during conversations with friends and seeing the sites of New York City, and blessed by taking some time to remember those who are no longer working among us, who led by action in taking time away from their work schedules of preparing school leaders to invest in the future of this active and vibrant community of professors of educational administration.  And now we are back to the work that comes with a new academic year – so welcome to the continuous cycle of working, reflecting, refreshing, and returning to our work to innovate, invent, and imagine – again.

We also heard about the progress we are making as an organization in the area of publications – progress to promote the knowledge base for leadership within schools in the United States and the world.  Ted Creighton and Brad Bizzell, NCPEA publications directors, presented samples of significant work from our professor-members.  Jim Berry, executive director, posed criteria for making crucial decisions that face the executive board this year – the “how and how much” approach to determine investments of time and money to strategically grow our role as a publisher within the field of educational administration.

One such project was the publication of an NCPEA position paper arguing for an interrelated approach to teacher leadership, which was presented by Dr. Berry to the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) in the fall of 2012.  Specifically, to implement this concept requires rethinking how we prepare school leaders and modeling collaboration among faculty in higher education and between universities and the schools for which we prepare leaders.  The executive board approved using this September Talking Point space to pose some questions about how we design educational administration curriculum and instruction to expand the perception and preparation of teacher leaders.  Listening to your answers is important to our next step in shaping the national conversation and aggressively implementing our NCPEA action plan to strengthen teacher leadership.

Please take some time to think about and reply to the following prompts to help formulate the eventual NCPEA policy brief that is scheduled for publication this fall.  Blessings to you as you embark on the journey of your new academic year!   


NCPEA members, we invite you to respond to the following questions in this blog and to add any additional questions or comments.

Thoughts to Prompt Your Thinking

·         Leadership matters in schools, so we need to be aggressive in how we prepare school leaders
·         “Not to say we do it better, but to show we do it differently” – with an effective humility
·         Considering a thought, both expressed by Nel Noddings’ Keynote and in Jim Cibulka’s Cocking Lecture (click here for slides), we need to prepare leaders who are willing and able to navigate politics to aggressively advocate for and influence decisions to develop sound policy that promote educators and our profession to better serve children and families.

The NCPEA distinctive in preparing school leaders (NOTE: The majority of school leaders working within schools today are prepared in programs where our NCPEA professor-members work)

     Collaborative, democratic, participatory & personal approach to preparing school leaders
     Bigger vision for how & why we are preparing teacher leaders with rigor and relevance
     NCPEA professors speak, write & teach

·         Why should we lead from within our Ed. Admin. programs in preparing teaching leaders?

·         What are your program’s vision and ideas for preparing school leaders? And how will school leadership change if your program’s ideas are implemented?

·         How do you present a larger perspective of leadership, specifically teacher leadership, in your program?

·         What knowledge & skills differ from what is learned from educational administration and from teacher education perspectives?

·         Provide some examples of collaboration within your college or university to prepare effective teacher leaders?

·         Provide some examples of collaboration among your P-12 school partners to prepare effective teacher leaders?

·         Thank you!

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

AN INVITATION TO CRITICALLY READ OPERATING IN THE DARK, A RECENT REPORT FROM THE GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE OF DALLAS, TEXAS

The George W. Bush Institute is a conservatively funded think tank now issuing policy briefs and conducting surveys to advance its political agenda. For our NCPEA members we have included a complete copy of that report. Five questions were developed by a special Executive Board Sub-Committee to frame this report. The Committee was comprised of Fenwick English, Rosemary Papa, Deborah Erickson, Carol Mullen and Executive Director James Berry.

The report may be viewed by clicking on this link: Operating in the Dark


NCPEA members, we invite you to respond to the following questions in this blog and to add any additional questions or comments.

Monday, April 8, 2013


Exploring Entrepreneurialism in Academia

Inna Gorlova, Ed.D.
Adjunct Faculty
Leadership and Counseling Department
Eastern Michigan University

Globalization and the rapidly changing market cause universities to seek new and creative ways to survive and succeed.  The term entrepreneurial university is an ideological umbrella for those higher education institutions that are attempting to fully participate in the social and economic life of society (Clark, 2004; Etzkowitz, 2004; Schramm, 2006).  The mission of entrepreneurial universities goes beyond teaching and research.  They actively collaborate with the external organizations as they transfer knowledge to new or improved programs and services (Etzkowitz, 2004).

A qualitative study was conducted to investigate entrepreneurial transformation at the academic and non-academic departments of the School of Education at one Midwestern large public comprehensive university.  I sought to better understand the growth of the programs and services at the units of analysis and how entrepreneurial concepts such as entrepreneurial behavior, culture, entrepreneurial products, creativity, innovations, and others play out in the chosen institution.  Collected qualitative data were coded and scanned for common themes.

Fourteen emergent themes were put into five categories: Entrepreneurial Individuals, Environmental Factors, Organizational Behaviors, Organizational Outcomes, and Organizational Systems.  Analysis of the emergent themes showed that they are not equal; some of the themes are more important than the others.  The following four themes were found to be core ones: Diversity of Personal and Professional Expertize and Experiences, Teamwork and Internal Collaboration, Unique/Innovative Programs and Services, and Entrepreneurial Achievement Oriented Organizational Culture.  These core themes have closer connections among the other themes and carry the content to which the data refer more often that to the rest of themes (see the highlighted themes in the Table below).

Fourteen emergent themes and five main categories

These themes create a “story” that emerged from the data.  This story tells that the organizational members with diverse backgrounds, experiences and expertise, come together in different teams and collaborate to achieve common goals.  They work across campus and with the partnering organizations in the state, region, nationally, and internationally.  They scan environment and conduct research on the best practices at other higher education institutions.  During these collaborative processes, they choose ideas for new projects and improvements for their existing programs and services and turn the ideas to innovative organizational outcomes.  The innovations are considered as unique novel programs that may be new at the level of departments, School of Education, University, or among other universities.  All of the processes at the selected departments contribute to the entrepreneurial culture.  This culture should be understood as the lowest level of “cultural iceberg” that represents underlined assumptions and deep believes (Schein, 2004) of the organizational members.  This culture is achievement oriented (McClelland, 1961).  The individuals compete with each other how far they may go in the market.  This culture is supportive to new ideas and involves hard work, determination, and risk-taking. 

These four themes are tied in a cycling process because the entrepreneurial organizational culture promotes a lot of restructuring activities at all of the levels within the University.  The restructuring leads to frequent change of the positions and responsibilities because the organization seeks fresh input.  When the departments hire new faculty or staff, the hiring committee looks in candidates for diverse backgrounds, creativity, curiosity, and proven abilities to go beyond traditional walls in academia.

This study was an important opportunity for me, as an educational leader, to learn about the processes that occur in higher education because of global pressures and about how entrepreneurialism enhances capability of an organization to succeed in today’s globalizing world.

Questions for consideration:
How do we, educational leaders, apply creativity in our everyday work with the students? And how do we recognize and support creativity and initiatives by our students and/or colleagues? How often are we willing to go beyond our comfort zones and initiate and implement projects that would bring people from other disciplinary together in order to improve teaching-learning? Where entrepreneurialism in academia starts: in a classroom or at a president office?

References:

Clark, B. R. (2004). Delineating the Character of the Entrepreneurial University. Higher Education Policy, 17, 355-370.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1, 64-77.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van. Nostrand Company, Ltd.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd Ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons
Schramm, C. (2006). The Entrepreneurial imperative: How America’s economic miracle will reshape the world (and change your life). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers

Monday, March 4, 2013

MAPEA Virtual Symposium -- Now Live!

Angela Elkordy
Doctoral Candidate
Leadership and Counseling,
Eastern Michigan University

The Michigan Association of Professors of Educational Administration is convening a Virtual Symposium during the month of March, 2013. You are invited to participate!

Researchers have prepared presentations for your review. Questions and comments will be accepted from March 4-18, 2013, followed by "live" sessions March 19-21, in which researchers will address feedback. Please show your support by sharing your ideas!

For more information, please see the MAPEA Virtual Symposium web site: http://www.mapeasymposium.org/