AASA WEBINAR: DISTRICT-

UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS

April 26, 2011

ABOUT THE WEBINAR Overview and prior research (Terry Orr)

Leadership preparation (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe & Orr, 2009)

District-university partnerships (Orr, King, LaPointe, 2011)

Impact of preparation on leader practices (Orr & Orphanos, 2011)

District-led partnerships: strategies, experiences and outcomes Jefferson County Public Schools (Lynne Wheat) St. Louis Public Schools (Sheila Smith-

Anderson)

CONTEXT Need for more quality school leaders

Leader turnoverChanging expectations for school

performance Instructionally effective Data analysis Change manager

Difficulties finding and retaining quality

States and districts focus on graduate-level leadership preparation

APPROACHES TO QUALITY PREPARATION

Conventional approach uses: District options use:

state standards the quality and

effectiveness of multiple local providers

State licensure standards to assess leader eligibility

Discerning consumer—sets standards for candidate selection

Competitor—add more programs and services to the preparation pipeline

Collaborator—work with local universities to tailor a program

PROGRAM INVESTMENT OUTCOME: PROGRAM DESIGN Redefined the scope of leadership

preparation3-4 yearsLicensure preparation as foundationDistrict-specific seminars on operations and

systemsMore full-time internships

Recruitment and selectionMore extensive criteria and stepsMore job-like (focused on instructional

leadership readiness)Tied to internship opportunities

PROGRAM INVESTMENT OUTCOME: QUALITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION Content: Instructional leadership, change

and district operations Varied instructional time, course

sequencing, and format (more executive) More experiential pedagogical practices Longer, more intensive internships More assignments and assessments

linked to actual school leader tasks (e.g. using data, planning, problem solving)

Greater use of district personnel in program delivery

IN-KIND RESOURCES AND EXPERTISE

District University Clarified needs and

expectations for school leadership

Candidate recruitment Leadership specialists Authentic context District information Internship placements Transition to

leadership positions Space

State registered program leading to leadership certification

Capacity to organize and delivery program content

Candidate support Faculty expertise Relevant theory and

research Assessment Credit and degree

management Higher education resources

PARTNERSHIP ATTRIBUTES Bridge leader Institutional commitment and support Shared vision and expectations for

leadership Shared governance and accountability Resource commitment Two-way organizational learning Commitment to continuous improvement

CHALLENGES AND HINDRANCES Within the district

Leadership turnover Insufficient quality leaders for mentoringDisconnections between leadership

preparation, selection, supervision and evaluation

Within the universityLeadership turnoverHigher education policies and accreditation

demandsFinancial viability

PARTNERSHIP INFLUENCE ON LEADER QUALITY Better prepared leader candidates Greater readiness for initial positions

and smoother transition into an initial position

Enable collective leadership capacity District learning benefits (about

leadership) University learning benefits (about

preparation and about urban district needs)

THE INFLUENCE OF QUALITY LEADERSHIP PREPARATION Leadership-focused program content

and quality internship are the most influential features for leader outcomesImpacts how much graduates learn

about leadershipImpacts how principals focus their work,

particularly for school improvement. Quality preparation has a positive

influence on leaders even for those who work in challenging school settings.

ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE FIELD Jefferson County Public Schools which

partners with four local universities, recruiting high quality candidates and insuring district-university defined competency preparation

St. Louis Public Schools used a competitive RFP process to select one university partner that met district needs, standards and expectations

HOW TO FIND A UNIVERSITY FOR PARTNERSHIP Jefferson County Public Schools works

with four local universities and uses their competitive relationship to leverage program change and alignment to district priorities

St. Louis Public Schools used a competitive RFP process to have local universities identify how they would redesign their programs and contribute resources to meet district leadership preparation requirements

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTJefferson County Public Schools uses

Memoranda of Understanding to frame expectations for district-university partnership programs

St. Louis Public Schools uses a contract to outline its “non-negotiables” which the local university proposes to achieve

DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF STANDARDS Jefferson County’s competency

development process started with one university and broadened to include four, as well as state representatives

St. Louis’s used its non-negotiables and adopted the NYC Leadership Academy standards and Leadership Preparation and Practices Worksheet to frame expectations

INNOVATIVE COURSE CONTENTSt. Louis’s innovative approach to content and course

structure abandoned the conventional syllabus and course format to

use more issue and problem-driven inquiry and analysis among faculty and candidates throughout the program

Used a Backward Design process to align course content to the context of St. Louis Public Schools

University assigned a faculty liaison to be housed in the central office; the liaison and program director could work quickly in adapting the content and courses to issues and problems

Jefferson County identified core courses that were co-designed and team-taught by district and university instructors, reflecting district priorities Assigned district liaisons to work as adjuncts in each

university

QUALITY INTERNSHIP PLACEMENTS

Both use a medical model approach to internships Selecting quality internship supervisors Rotating among schools

Jefferson County’s two tier internship model: 105 hours within the preparation program Full-year paid internship for a small number of highly qualified

candidates, who rotated between 2-3 schools (within the same division)

St. Louis created full time release for leadership candidates, enabling 80% full time work and 20% coursework Rotated between 2-3 schools (of different levels) throughout the

year, based on candidate needs and leadership opportunities Many candidates became certified for school leadership in two

levels Each candidate had a university mentor and a business mentor

(from the Boeing business partnership) through the placement year

FUNDING OPTIONS: BOTH DISTRICTS

District contributions University contributions

Grant funding enabled scholarships and paid internships

In-kind contributions of space and resources

St. Louis business partnerships support interns

JCPS uses general funds for selected internships

St. Louis obtained deep discounts in university tuition and fees

SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM Balancing innovation

Starting with a willingness to completely rethink preparation, from the ground up, in constructing a new program

Protecting the program, once created, from continual redesign (particularly with leader turnover)

Navigating turnover In district leadership (superintendents, experienced

principals) In university leadership (deans, department chairs,

and faculty) Having a champion Continuously connecting to school improvement

REFERENCES Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson,

D., LaPointe, M. & Orr, M. T. (2009) Preparing principals for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass (an earlier report is on the Wallace Foundation website http://www.wallacefoundation.org)

Orr, M. T., King, C., LaPointe, M. (2010). Districts Developing Leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Newton, MA: EDC, Inc. (also available on the Wallace Foundation website)

Orr, M. T. & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders Educational Administration Quarterly. 47:18-70

CONTACTS

Jefferson County Public Schools St. Louis Public Schools

Lynne WheatExecutive director Administrator Recruitment & DevelopmentJefferson County Public Schools3332 Newburg RoadLouisville KY  40218Phone (502)-485-3114lynne.wheat@jefferson.kyschools.us

Sheila Smith-AndersonExecutive directorLeadership DevelopmentSt. Louis Public Schools 801 N. 11Th Street Third FloorSt. Louis, Missouri 63101Phone (314)-385-2522Sheila.smith-anderson@slps.org

ADDITIONAL CONTACTSMargaret Terry OrrBank Street

College of Education

610 W. 112th Street

New York, New York 10025

morr@bnkst.edu212-875-4546

The Wallace Foundation

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/default.aspx