Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Technology and Digital Media Impact: Considerations for Leadership Preparation in K-20 Education


Angela Elkordy, aelkordy@emich.edu
Doctoral Candidate
Eastern Michigan University, Dept. of Leadership and Counseling

       Although “technology integration” has been a prominent goal in many educational environments, significant challenges remain to the consistent implementation and meaningful application of instructional technologies. Significantly, learner preferences shaped by participation in a digitally-mediated world are often-overlooked in the process of curriculum development as well as in planning of instruction delivery and learning environments. There are substantial ramifications for educational leaders resulting from the new, rapidly evolving skill sets and competencies necessary for the knowledge-economy workplace; to be effective in the shifting educational landscape, leaders must leverage learners’ new strengths to develop effective learning tools, objectives and environments.

Technology has irrevocably transformed society:

       As a result of Internet and communications technologies (ICT), the way in which much of the world lives, communicates and conducts business has been transformed. In the developed world, these changes are structural and pervasive, transforming practices and paradigms. Internet-mediated communications, for example, foster interactions across time and distance via texting, VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) enabled communications, smartphones, email, social networking sites or messaging, in addition to a myriad of other conduits such as video, chat and conferencing.   The use of digital media and ICT has altered societies on every level: health care, business models, knowledge acquisition activities, education and social interactions – including the meaning and context of global citizenry - which are now in continuous motion on global platforms.
In fact, because the Internet has become almost synonymous with societal, economic and even political growth, some leaders believe access to the Internet is so critical that it is regarded as a “human right” by the United Nations:

[We] declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  (World Summit on the Information Society, 2003)

Technology has irrevocably transformed the workplace:

       One of the realms most impacted by digital media and ICT is the work place. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, jobs in the manufacturing sector in 1967 accounted for 54% of the U.S. economic output whereas by 1997, this was surpassed, at 64%, by information products (Partnership, 2008). Davidson, citing research on the future workplace by the U.S. Department of Labor suggested: “ by one estimate, 65% of children entering grade school this year will end up working in careers that haven’t even been invented yet” (Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention will Transform the Way we Live, Work and Learn, 2011).

       An outcome of this trend has been a parallel shift in the skill sets and competencies necessary for workers to function in what is now, effectively, a global marketplace made possible by digital communications and Internet technologies. Researchers and policy makers are advocating for a diverse new range of skills and dispositions including the abilities to be creative, innovative and in the European Union, “entrepreneurial thinking” is advocated as a necessary new skill. As a result, forward thinking educational researchers, policy makers and educators have recognized a definitive shift in necessary basic competencies (often called “literacies”) critical for U.S. competitiveness. This has obliged educators and others to consider new ways of teaching to prepare learners to thrive in a largely unpredictable 21st century workplace.

Technology has irrevocably altered the environments of youth:

       Not surprisingly, our students have been profoundly impacted growing up in a digitally-mediated world, in large part due to the amount of daily media and ICT-related exposures which are increasing. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, 8-18 year olds spend more than 10:45 hours per day exposed to various types of media  (TV content, computers, music/audio, print, movies, video games). This amount of exposure has increased in the past decade from 7:29 hours in 1999. In addition, over 25% of this time is spent “multitasking”, engaging in more than one media simultaneously.

       Students today have definite preferences in learning as a direct result of this media immersion; according to the Kaiser study, 81% of teens use media at least “a little” of the time or more while doing homework. Furthermore, they have definite preferences in communication modes and styles. A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life reported: “Texting is by far the most popular way for teens to communicate. While 63% of teens say they text every day, only 39% said they make calls on their phones on a daily basis or send messages through social networking sites (29%). In addition, 35% said they socialize face to face outside of school” (Teens, Smartphones and Texting, 2012).

Technology has irrevocably altered how we learn:

       Considering the extent of media and Internet immersion, it’s not surprising that the preferred learning modes, methods of transmission, and learning styles of our students, particularly teens and young adults, differ significantly from previous generations’.  Accustomed to being entertained and engaged, many students carry this expectation into the classroom and at the very least, expect that to learn in a similarly engaging and interactive manner. As digital devices have become increasingly mainstreamed and used by  young children, users expect, and are usually rewarded, by intelligent design which is intuitive and easily discerned.  As a result, the

digital generation has adopted a mindset of rapid-fire-trial-and-error learning. They’re not afraid of making mistakes because they learn more quickly that way. They operate under the strategy of useful failure …..while people of our generation are under the assumption that all failure is bad and help comes from an expert or a book. (Understanding the Digital Generation, 2011).

       Students’ learning and communications styles and expectations have profound influence on the development of instructional programs. These changes in the learning landscape are all too often overlooked, misunderstood, or not taken into account by educators. It is critical that educators are aware of the existence of digital age learning preferences regardless of technology use, or not, in the learning space. For example, digital age learners prefer the flow of information to be non-sequential and streamed from multiple, linked sources. Exposed to vast quantities of media and data from an early age, digital learners are often critical consumers of information and they are comfortable with large quantities of data in rapid succession. Young adults, in particular, are often active in online communities where information is crowd-sourced and verified, such as Wikipedia.

       Digital age learners have a strong preference for visual learning, tending to process media before text. They expect learning to be engaging and interactive, relevant, authentic and motivating. As the volume of free, increasingly more reliable information is readily available online, there has been a distinct shift in information seeking behaviors which has rendered the necessity of remembering large quantities of information irrelevant. Instead, just-in-time learning is now more often appropriate, where information is retrieved as needed to solve authentic problems. Stylistically, the presentation of the overall concept or problem first is key to these learners; that is, information and inquiry in context leading to situational learning opportunities.

       In terms of strategy, digital age learners tend to prefer extensive integration of digital technologies and tools and for collaborative work (especially digitally-mediated). Furthermore, there is a strong preference for peer assisted, problem solving, inquiry-based and discovery kinds of learning which are embedded in a meaningful context (which is why game-based learning has become so effective in some environments).
An extremely important trend is the significant amount of learning which is occurring in informal environments ; this learning is primarily interest driven and self-motivated, occurring through technology-mediated environments such as social media and other networks. It is highly social and participatory in nature.

        As the concept of digital media technologies for learning matures, new models of learning and assessment are emerging to inform curriculum and instruction. Some of these ideas support the idea of school reform, and others complement it; for example, the Connected Learning Model  (http://connectedlearning.tv/infographic), which includes important socio-cultural factors of effective learning environments such as participatory learning, connectivity  as well as individual factors, such as individual  “interest”  or motivation (D. Hickey, personal communication, August 19, 2012).

       Emerging in response to the need for life-long learners to communicate newly acquired proficiencies and skills to employers and other interested audiences, is the “new” concept of Digital Badges and micro credentialing. As the quality and amount of free digital media resources increases, matched with the availability of portable digital devices, learning can, and does occur anywhere and at any time. Much of this learning focuses upon skills which are urgently needed in the workplace, but because they are not taught in formal environments, they are currently neither assessed nor acknowledged.  The concept of digital badging has the potential to “disrupt” higher education; Arne Duncan, U. S. Secretary of Education recently described the use of badges as a “game changing strategy. “ (Duncan, 2012).

Technology and schools… in transition:

       K-20 Educational institutions are changing, slowly, as the ramifications of digital media and ICT technologies have become firmly entrenched in other environments.  As with most diffusion patterns of innovation, there are pockets of success and notable failures. Online learning, once an innovative, emerging method of instructional delivery, has now become main-streamed with both K-12 and higher education offering classes entirely in cyberspace.

       Despite the significant “integration of technology” in teaching and learning as well as administration, practicing educators, for the most part, lag behind in understanding. It is imperative that school leaders be moderately technically adept, and critical that they understand the possibilities and limitations of technologies. For example, so many technology initiatives fail because of the well-meaning vision of “technology integration” which fails to match learning theory with the practical application of technologies as pedagogical tools. Without this understanding, leaders risk failure and irrelevance, wasting resources and demoralizing colleagues.

Implications for Educational Leadership Faculty
Technology has the potential to leverage teaching and instruction:

       Innovative technologies which could be applied in educational contexts are being developed at a rapid pace. In the past 2-3 years, advances have been made in hardware, personal digital devices, and digital media and software. Many of these technologies are already in use in business and industry contexts. The implementation of these technologies lags behind for a variety of reasons but one of the most pervasive challenges is the knowledge and skill sets of the educators in the field. The U.S. Department of Education suggests that more attention should be directed to adequately preparing pre-service and in-service teachers, providing them with:

professional learning experiences powered by technology to increase their digital literacy and enable them to create compelling assignments for students that improve learning, assessment and instructional practices…… technology should be used ….to engage and motivate them in what and how they teach. (National Educational Technology Plan, 2010)
.
       The New Media Consortium in collaboration with the Consortium of School Networking (CoSN) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), reports on emerging technologies in education and challenges for the educational community. In the annual Horizon Report, the consortium reports that one of the most significant challenges to effective technology use is inadequate teacher preparation to use emerging technologies:

….despite the widespread agreement on the importance of digital media literacy, training in the supporting skills and techniques is rare in teacher education…..This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that digital literacy is less about tools and more about thinking [i.e. approaches and pedagogies] and thus skills and standards based upon tools and platforms have proven to be somewhat ephemeral. (p. 15).

       Characteristic of quality leadership, modeling and mentoring are powerful strategies, and are critical to successful innovation diffusion in organizations. A leaders' knowledge and skills can make a tremendous difference in the degree of success in technology-related initiatives.  Educational leaders and faculty have the capacity as well as the responsibility, to confer knowledge of effective technology practices to teachers and school administrators. We can only teach what we know; this may be best accomplished, in an ever changing context, by creating communities of learners with a common vision to really understand not only the capabilities of technology and how they have changed the learning landscape, but also to be responsive to students’ needs.  When used appropriately technology tools can facilitate in powerful pedagogies; as our students lives are enmeshed in internet and communications technologies, we risk being irrelevant if we do not lead the wave of change.

Considerations for addressing the need for K-20 teacher and administration preparation programs:
  • Knowledge and discourse on technologically-mediated learning and relevant theories, instructional practices and assessment
  •  Additional technology training and awareness for educational leadership and teacher preparation faculty
  • Training specifically for the complex and multifaceted change processes in implementing educational technology initiatives. For example, what kinds of support and leadership actions foster success?
  • Additional digital media and learning experiences in preparing pre service educators
  • More exploration and research on situated learning in technology-mediated learning in socio-cultural contexts (e.g. classrooms, professional development)

Please share your thoughts and comments. How do you think we can prepare educators for a digitally-mediated future?



Suggested resources:

21st Century Principal (blog): http://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/
Digital Media and Learning (web site): http://dmlcentral.net/
ESchoolNews: Technology for Today’s K-20 Educator (publication): http://www.eschoolnews.com/
Free Technology for Teachers (blog): http://www.freetech4teachers.com/

References:
Brenner, J. (2012). Pew internet: Teens. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/April/Pew-Internet-Teens.aspx
Carey, K. (2012). A Future full of badges. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Future-Full-of-Badges/131455/
Davidson, C. N. (2011). Now you see it: How the brain science of attention will transform the way we live, work and learn. New York, NY: Penguin Group
Duncan, A. (2011). Digital badges for learning: Remarks by Secretary Duncan at 4th annual launch of the MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Lifelong Learning Competition. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/digital-badges-learning
Europa, Summaries of EU Legislation (2006).  Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning, Retrieved May 8, 2012 from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11090_en.htm
Jukes, I., McCain, T. D. E., Crockett, L., 21st Century Fluency Project, & NetSavvy/Infosavvy Group. (2010). Understanding the digital generation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones and texting. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx
New Media Consortium. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition Retrieved May.20, 2012 from: http://www.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, (2008). 21st Century skills, education & competitiveness: A Resource and policy guide. Retrieved: February 16, 2012 from: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010).Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved May 18, 2012 from: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/mh012010presentL.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2012 , from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 
World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva 2003- Tunis 2005, (2003). Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new millennium. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

Monday, July 23, 2012


Grow, learn and contribute at the ...


NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

66TH Annual Conference


Social Justice, Competition and Quality: 21st Century Leadership Challenges

Kansas City, Missouri
August 7-10, 2012

Full details of events: Conference Schedule

Sunday, July 15, 2012

NCPEA Board Candidates


Currently, three candidates have accepted nominations for the forthcoming NCPEA Board Elections. Please review Candidate information at the NCPEA web site: http://www.emich.edu/ncpeaprofessors/


Vote for candidates: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X2DF868

Friday, June 1, 2012


Sharing our Learning: The Important Work of Scholarship in Community

Marc Shelton, EdD, Professor of Education
Director of Administrative Licensure
George Fox University – Newberg, OR

This month closes in on the one-year anniversary of this NCPEA blog, an initiative by the executive board to expand the conversation on the work our members are doing in school leader preparation programs.

As Jim Berry, our executive director, stated in a September 2011 memo, “The intent of Talking Points is to communicate and listen.  It is NCPEA’s version of the hard copy newsletter.  Talking Points is a combination of communication about the organization and a forum for discussing issues.  Keep in mind that what goes into Talking Points can be responded to in the comments section.  NCPEA also has set up Facebook and Twitter accounts to take advantage of these growing social media networks to expand the conversation about educational issues to the general public.”

One can review this inaugural year-at-a-glance by clicking in the blog archive to access the conversations that centered on the following topics:

·         The Practitioner Professoriate: Ways to Connect with Practitioners
·         Leadership Preparation Programs: A Home for Teacher Leaders
·         NCPEA Policy Brief: ESEA Waivers
·         Student Achievement and Educational Leadership Programs
·         Teacher Unions as Part of Democratic Decision Making
·         Increasing Professors’ Voices in Educational Policy
·         Educational Leadership at 2050
·         Mentor Mosaic: NCPEA’s Role in the Development of the Professoriate
·         Blazing Leadership Trails for Equity & Access: A New Direction
·         Interagency, Non-Profit, and Neoliberal Collaboration: A Three-part Perspective

This blog has continued conversations in the time between Augusts – from the past summer’s conference in Portland to our upcoming time together in Kansas City.  It has served to expand the conversations happening consistently through our NCPEA Publications website and journals.  It has provided a forum for executive board members to share our thoughts, ideas, and learning with the growing membership of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, as we close in on nearly three-quarters of a century as a formal organization – a community dedicated to the advancement of leadership in education.

I have been reflecting on the work of Ernest Boyer (1990), and colleagues that have carried on the work at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in a national study of roles and rewards for faculty.  Two books published by these learners were shared with the broader community and suggested the need to reconsider and reassess priorities of professors at institutions of higher learning.  The authors presented six criteria for assessing scholarship, with my parenthetical descriptors, as follows:
 
  1. Clear Goals – Purposeful
  2. Adequate Preparation – Thoughtful 
  3. Appropriate Methods – Meaningful
  4. Significant Results – Fruitful
  5. Effective Presentation – Beautiful
  6. Reflective Critique – Truthful
Glassick, Huber & Maeroff (1997, p. 36)

Sharing one’s learning matters – just as leadership is the ability to act as a leader, then scholarship could de defined as the ability to act as a learner.  In our discipline, it is believed that leadership matters and fruitful leadership can make a difference in the life of an organization and its members.  Likewise, in institutions of higher learning it is important to model that learning happens through our teaching in classrooms, is integrated through our service in life applications, and discovered through our collaborative research that is shared with and evaluated by the broader community, all with evidence in assessing our work to expand the knowledge base of leadership in education that reflect these six measures.

This broader definition of scholarship is one that many are discussing on campuses related to promotion and tenure, which is one meaningful benefit of belonging to NCPEA.  But, perhaps, the discussion is more to focus us on the importance of learning from one another by listening well to others’ voices to develop multiple perspectives on broader topics influencing our work.  This is why I am excited to join the discussion – seeing and hearing others again in Kansas City!





REFERENCES


Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.

English, F.W., Papa, R., Mullen, C.A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050: Conjectures, challenges, and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kutcher, E.J., Bragger, J.D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., & Masco, J.L.  (2010). The role of religiosity in stress, job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 319–337.

NCPEA Talking Points: New, Views and Opinions on Leadership in Education. http://ncpeapublications.blogspot.com/.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012


Connecting the practitioner and the professor: Establishing a strong professional organization


Pauline M. Sampson

Associate Professor
Superintendent Program Coordinator, IRB Chair
Stephen F. Austin State University

A strong organization such as NCPEA could further its identity by more recruitment of preK-12 educational leaders to join NCPEA. Educational leadership preparation programs strive to develop scholar-practitioners where leaders constantly use current research and best practices to form their decisions.  At the university level, professors develop their own research agendas and these research agendas may be connected to current needs of schools.  Additionally, NCPEA strives to be a forum to guide policy for educational leadership while providing its members opportunities to network.  This helps them keep current on research in educational leadership and publish their research.  This increases the accessibility of their research to both practitioners and other professors.

One way to ensure the success of an organization is to continue increasing its membership. This leads to increased revenue that could be used to conduct the mission of the organization as well as network with people in the same field. Organizations that network and engage their members have a greater chance of continuity.  Organizations also continue to change and evolve to meet the needs of its members for the recruitment of future members.
 
Another way to increase recruitment of new members is to examine the network of current school leaders, who are the practitioners, and involves them with the professors.  Suddaby and Viale (2011) identified one purpose for professionals to network was that they have an understanding of the field and are able to bring along new members to the field that help create new identities for the field. 

Many practitioners may desire to move into the professorate. Networking practicing school administrators with professors to compete research projects can benefit both groups. This combined work helps the school leaders to become stronger scholar-practitioners by providing a better understanding of the need for scholarship at the university level with service, as well as honing their skills as researchers with professors.  The professors are helped by having relevant research while working to develop future potential professors. 

Additionally, this collaboration could assist practitioners to learn more about the career of a professor so they could have a smoother transition should they decide to work at a university (Coleman, Christie, Culver, Erickson, Hunt, Williams, Kinsey, Smith, & Tareilo, 2007; Johnson & De Spain, 2004; Karanovich, 2010; Searby, Ivanlova, & Shores, 2010).  Exposure for practitioners to the expectations of higher education, especially for service and scholarship, could be helped with an early collaboration between school leaders and university faculty (Marshall, Karanovich, & Sampson, 2010).  Holberg and Taylor (2004) focused on the concerns of publications for the profession of English professors with lower opportunities to publish because of fewer book publishers.  Further Holberg and Taylor (2004) suggested the professorate must have a focus on teaching.  I would suggest that reconsideration is also needed for the connection to service.  This service can lead to research published by the professors and their colleagues who may desire movement to the professorate.  This type of connection would continue NCPEA’s engagement with practitioners while increasing a focus on the use of research by practitioners.



References
Coleman, J. C., Christie, E., Culver, M. K., Erickson, D. E., Hunt, J. W., Williams, F. K., Kinsey, G. W., Smith, S. J., & Tareilo, J. (2007). The transition from practitioner to professor: The struggle of new faculty to find their place in the world of academia.  NCPEA Educational Leadership Review, 8(2), 65-76.
Holberg, J. L ., & Taylor, M. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Getting the profession we want, or a few thoughts on the crisis in scholarly publishing.  Pedagogy, 4(1), 1-7.
Johnson, J. A., & DeSpain, B. C. (2004). Mentoring the reluctant writer. The Professional Educator, 26(2), 45-55.
Karanovich, F. (2010). Transitioning from the Superintendent’s Chair to the Professor’s Podium: A Narrative of Personal Reflections. In Michael Afolayan (Ed.), Multiculturalism in the Age of the Mosaic: Essays in Honor of Rudolph G. Wilson. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 
Marshall, R. L., Karanovich, F. A., & Sampson, P. M. (2010).  From practitioner to professor: The impact of mentor programs on the success of PK-12 practitioners entering higher education.  Paper presented at the National Council for Professor of Educational Administration in Washington, D. C.  August 2-6, 2010.
Searby, L. J., Ivankova, N. V., & Shores, M. L. (2009). Capable, contributing, and connected: New professors find support through a peer learning community. Learning Communities Journal, 1(2), 97-119.
Suddaby, R., &Viale, T. (2011). Professionals and field level change: Institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59(4), 423-442.

Sunday, April 1, 2012


Departments of Educational Leadership- a Natural Home for the Development of Teacher Leadership Programs

Caryn Wells
Associate Professor
Education Specialist Program Coordinator

Oakland University

         Executive Board members of the NCPEA are drafting a position paper that has as its foundation, the belief that departments of Educational Leadership are uniquely positioned to offer programs in Teacher Leadership to benefit teachers as well as aspiring and practicing administrators. We take this stand for several important reasons, illustrated here in the April Talking Points blog. I write on behalf of my colleagues who are working with me to develop the paper that will be delivered at the annual meeting in Kansas City in August of 2012. This blog contains some preliminary considerations, generated to initiate conversation and reflection among the members of our organization in advance of our meeting.

     Why teacher leadership, why now, and why Educational Leadership departments?

      In schools across America, principals are faced with mounting pressure to develop instructional programs that will increase student achievement for every student during periods of diminished funding and increased visibility in the public eye (Hess & Kelly, 2007; Kafka, 2009; Louis, et al., 2010; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The job of educational leaders has described as being “a job too big for one,” as Grubb and Flessa (2006) reported in the title of their study (p.518).  Opportunities for partnership in the leadership of schools are within the buildings of the school- the obvious insights, expertise, and skills of the teachers. Teacher leadership is associated with the possibility of improving student achievement and a sense of change in the culture of the schools to promote teaching learning and collaboration (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Mujis & Harris, 2003: York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

     University preparation programs are faced with challenge and opportunity to prepare aspiring and practicing leaders to fulfill the expectations that will transform educational environments for social justice, where every student achieves and thrives. Calls for pedagogic leadership in the training of principals are emerging in the literature (NCPEA, in press). The pedagogic leadership that is the foundation for administrative leadership training has a natural home in the preparation of teacher leaders. For example:
·         
           Departments of Educational Leadership have, at their foundation, instructional leadership constructs that teach the theoretical underpinnings of teaching and learning;
·         Teacher Leadership programs demand skill development in principles of leadership- professors of Educational Leadership programs teach how the political, structural, symbolic, and human resource frames intersect in a school (Bolman & Deal, 2004);

·              Professors of Educational Leadership programs are able to teach the process of the changes inherent in the transformation to include teachers as leaders, including teaching skills that respond to conflict and resistance; these skills are often taught by professors who have been practitioners in educational leadership roles;

·            Teacher leadership preparation must move beyond concepts of efficiency, research, collaboration, and study of school culture to include social justice as a foundation for improving schools for every student, concepts taught by Ed Leadership departments; and

·             The deliberate naming of teacher leadership programs suggests that it is about leadership, concepts for which professors of Educational Leadership have been trained, and are involved in as leaders in scholarship, teaching, and service.

     I invite your feedback about the development of Teacher Leadership programs as part of the Educational Leadership departments in universities. We are preparing principals and central office administrators who will be the partners with teachers in new leadership structures.

      We are at a crossroads with regard to program development and implementation of Teacher Leadership programs. Along with colleagues from the Executive Board of NCPEA, I submit that is time for us to take an important lead in conversation, implementation, and research concerning Teacher Leadership. We look forward to your feedback for the same.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th Ed. ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468- 503. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03255561
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
English, F. W., Papa, R., Mullen, C. A., & Creighton, T. (2012). Educational leadership at 2050. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518-550. doi: 10.1177/0013161x06290641
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. K. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-174.
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 318-320. Doi: 10.1080101619560902973506
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009) Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders, (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., Wahlstom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M. Thomas, E., Leithwood, K., Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report to the Wallace Foundation. The University of Minnesota.
Mujis, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership- improvement through empowerment?: An overview of the literature. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 31(4), 437-448. doi: 10.1177/0263211030314007
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 4(3), 255-316.