AASA Webinar: District-university partnerships

1. AASA Webinar: District-university partnerships April 26, 2011

2. 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)

3. Context • Need for more quality school leaders • Leader turnover • Changing expectations for school performance • Instructionally effective • Data analysis • Change manager • Difficulties finding and retaining quality • States and districts focus on graduate-level leadership preparation

4. Approaches to quality preparation • 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 Conventional approach uses: District options use:

5. Program investment outcome: Program design • Redefined the scope of leadership preparation • 3-4 years • Licensure preparation as foundation • District-specific seminars on operations and systems • More full-time internships • Recruitment and selection • More extensive criteria and steps • More job-like (focused on instructional leadership readiness) • Tied to internship opportunities

6. 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

7. in-kind resources and expertise • 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 District University

8. 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

9. Challenges and hindrances • Within the district • Leadership turnover • Insufficient quality leaders for mentoring • Disconnections between leadership preparation, selection, supervision and evaluation • Within the university • Leadership turnover • Higher education policies and accreditation demands • Financial viability

10. 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)

11. The influence of quality leadership preparation • Leadership-focused program content and quality internship are the most influential features for leader outcomes • Impacts how much graduates learn about leadership • Impacts 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. Partnership agreement Jefferson 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

15. 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

16. Innovative course content St. 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

17. 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

18. Funding options: both districts • 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 District contributions University contributions

19. 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

20. 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

21. Contacts Lynne Wheat Executive director Administrator Recruitment & DevelopmentJefferson County Public Schools3332 Newburg RoadLouisville KY  40218Phone (502)-485-3114 lynne.wheat@jefferson.kyschools.us Sheila Smith-Anderson Executive director Leadership Development St. Louis Public Schools 801 N. 11Th Street Third FloorSt. Louis, Missouri 63101 Phone (314)-385-2522 Sheila.smith-anderson@slps.org Jefferson County Public Schools St. Louis Public Schools

22. Additional Contacts Margaret Terry Orr Bank Street College of Education 610 W. 112th Street New York, New York 10025 morr@bnkst.edu 212-875-4546 The Wallace Foundation http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/default.aspx