Introduction

Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). In an era of heightened accountability, tight budgets, and rapid technological innovation, schools across the nation have entered a period of unprecedented challenges and opportunity. School administration is a leadership position of critical importance in the compulsory school system of our democratic society, and it is critical that school administrators be of the highest quality to assume these challenges (Dufour, 2001; Fullan, 2000). Tirozzi (2001) asserts, "The time has come to put the principal's leadership brush to the canvas to paint a vision of what tomorrow's schools can and will be" (p. 434).

School administration first became a component of the educational system shortly after the Civil War with the development of the superintendency, the first administrative position in education (Gregg, 1960). Starting in the late 1940s, universities and emerging professional organizations sought to fully professionalize school administration (Goldhammer, 1983). In 1947, the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) was formed and had tremendous influence over emerging preparation programs. During this time the number of preparation programs also expanded to over 500 (National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration [NCEEA], 1987).

In 1983, A Nation at Risk was released demanding standards-based curriculum, school accountability, and effective leadership (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). In 1996, the CCSSO in conjunction with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed the first set of universal standards for school leaders entitled the Standards for School Leaders. These standards have been adopted in 35 states and are used to guide policy and practice related to school administrator preparation (Hale & Moorman, 2003). This, in conjunction with the reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, substantially increased the complexity of the role of school administrators.

The increasing complexity of the job, in combination with attrition through retirement, increased accountability, disincentives associated with the position, and cumbersome certification requirements, has contributed to a national administrator shortage. Rural, suburban, and urban districts across the United States are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit highly qualified school administrators, while, at the same time, record numbers are reaching retirement age (Cooley & Shen, 1999; Fenwick & Collins-Pierce, 2001; Groff, 2001).

California currently has more than 27,000 administrators who currently serve in its schools, districts and county offices and another 11,000 educators possess the necessary certification to serve in an administrative role (ACSA, 2001). Thus, one would expect there would not be an administrator shortage in this state. However, California superintendents and human resource directors report what is found nationally, that poor working conditions, low pay (especially when compared to career teacher salaries), long hours, and stress discourage potential applicants from applying (Adams, 1999).

In 2001, ACSA President Lillie Campbell created the Administrator Shortage Task Force to address the "administrative shortage" facing California which eventually contributed to the passing of Senate Bill 1655 (Scott) in 2002. The bill made modifications to the existing requirements by establishing alternatives for satisfying both the preliminary and professional clear levels of the administrative credential, including examination alternatives to specifically address the administrator shortage (NCEI, 2003). The current options for certification specified above include; traditional preparation, approved internship programs, and examination via the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) (CCTC, 2003c).

Although thousands of individuals have earned their administrative credential via the SLLA examination since its launch in 2003, Jensen found the employability of these administrator candidates was tenuous at best. Superintendents across the state of California were surveyed and nearly half, 48%, stated they would not hire candidates certified via examination (2005). This calls into question the efficacy of the examination route to address the administrator shortage. Although the examination route has increased the pool of potential administrative candidates, many superintendents expressed concern that a credential earned through a single examination is a shortcut that degrades the profession and does not fully prepare administrators to lead our schools (Jensen, 2005).

Background

School Administration Shortage

This year, the number of principals needed to fill new positions is expected to increase by up to 20% (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000; Copland, 2001; Lauder, 2000; Normore, 2006). Additionally, a large proportion, up to 40% of current school administrators, will be eligible to retire by 2013 (Groff, 2003; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [USBLS], 2004). The USBLS (2008) projects there to be an increase of 53,000 school administrator jobs by 2016. Other factors have also contributed to the shortage of qualified school administrators including a lack of desire of current educators to enter administration, cumbersome certification requirements, and doubts that traditional preparation programs are preparing candidates for the complex challenges facing school leaders.

Although there is a pool of credential-eligible administrator candidates across the country, many teachers choose to remain in the classroom due to the decreased attractiveness of school administration positions (Beem, 2002; Howley, Andrianaivo, & Perry, 2005; McAdams, 1998; Young, Peterson, & Short, 2002). In fact, many states are certifying more school administrators than there are positions available.

In Georgia, a state with less than 2,000 schools, there are 3,200 individuals certified in school administration, yet there are not enough qualified applicants. This is also true in New York where nearly two thirds of individuals with certification are working in other positions within the field of education (Herrington & Willis, 2005). Mazzeo (2003) asserts that "over-certification" occurs in large part because many school teachers obtain the higher certification and/or degree for financial gain with no intention of entering the field of administration. In California, more than 27,000 administrators serve in schools, districts and county offices. In addition, another 11,000 educators possess the necessary certification to serve in an administrative role (ACSA, 2001). Despite this pool of potential administrator candidates, many do not enter the ranks of assistant principal or principal.

Howley et al. (2005) suggest that the disincentives often outweigh any incentives associated with a position in school administration. Factors, such as the nature of the work, poor working conditions, emotional aspects of administration, inadequate compensation, and impact on a person's home life have diminished the pool of administrator candidates (Cooley & Shen, 1999). Nationally, only 25% of those certified to be school administrators actually apply for or accept an administrator position (Hale & Moorman, 2003).

Certification Requirements

Certification requirements compound the issue of a looming administrator shortage. Certification requirements create a barrier to employment and thereby further limit the pool of candidates without empirical evidence which demonstrates that certification leads to more effective school administrators (Hess & Kelly, 2005). Hess (2003) asserts that certification:

Prohibits those who don't meet the guidelines from applying for work. This only makes sense if we are certain that someone who has not taught and has not completed an educational administration program cannot be an effective principal or superintendent. (p. 3)

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003) in Better Leader's for America's Schools: A Manifesto (2003) also argues against strict certification:

"We will undoubtedly find some of tomorrow's great education leaders in the usual places, trained and licensed in the old, familiar ways, but we won't find enough of them there. And there is no reason to confine our search to the usual places" [foreword by Chester E. Finn Jr.]. . . .

Some, to be sure, can be recruited from the ranks of educators. But why stop there? They (candidates) can also be found in the military, in business and higher education, in private and charter schools, in other branches of public administration, and in the nonprofit worlds of foundations and community organizations. In short, candidates may be anywhere and everywhere, so we dare not narrow our field of vision by requiring everyone to be a veteran public school educator. It's precisely because quality leaders are scarce that we cannot afford to reject anybody who may possess (leadership qualities) simply because he or she lacks convention state certification. (pp. 1 & 3)

Although several authors have suggested that certification requirements be eliminated, most states still subscribe to the notion school administrators must be traditionally trained in school administration programs in order to obtain certification. Currently, prospective school administrators are required in 47 states to acquire a credential or obtain certification in school administration before assuming a leadership position (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2003). To add to the complexity, each state establishes its own licensing, certification, and re-certification requirements for school administrators. To obtain administrative certification, the majority of states require a minimum number of years of teaching experience and graduate education from a college of education (Mazzeo, 2003). Currently, 41 states require that both standards be met and 17 states also require that candidates pass a written examination for certification (Anthes, 2004).

School Administration Preparation Programs

The quality and efficacy of school administration programs have been called into question. In fact, a study of school principals reveals that only 4% contend that their administrator preparation program was vital in their ability to function effectively as a school administrator (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). In the Principal Challenge: Leading and Managing Schools in an Era of Accountability, Tucker and Codding (2002) argue that even in prestigious school administration programs, "there is typically very little connection between the curriculum as taught and the actual demands, conditions, and problems of everyday practice" (p. 13). Bjork (2000) concluded that despite the prevalence of formal preparation and training programs, superintendents, the highest school administration position one can hold, primarily learn their role informally through on-the-job training because of preparation program inadequacies.

The debate surrounding the effectiveness of traditional school administration preparation programs, and a shortage of candidates to fill open positions, in many states, has opened the door to discussion of the efficacy of alternative preparation routes. Recognizing there is a need to decrease the "red tape" associated with certification, yet still provide for a formal certification process, alternative routes for certifying school administrators have been developed in 14 states (National Center for Education Information [NCEI], 2003).

Alternative Certification

Alternative routes to certification include provisional certification, internship, mentoring arrangements, and portfolio development. For example, minimally qualified individuals located in rural areas of Montana can obtain a 3-year provisional certificate by enrolling as an intern in a university-based program, receiving on-site mentoring guidance, and attending brief, intense courses during the summer (Erickson, 2001). California candidates can serve as a school administrator intern by concurrently enrolling in a university program and participating in intense university-monitored mentoring (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 2003b). Missouri passed legislation in 2002 that allows school districts to issue temporary administrator certificates to licensed teachers with a master's degree or who are currently enrolled in a master's program and have a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience (Groff, 2003).

In support of the assumption that preparation for a school administrative position can result from experiences other than traditional preparation, Texas, Vermont, and New Jersey have laws allowing school districts to hire people as school leaders who have master's degrees in areas such as management or public policy. Michigan is no longer authorized to issue administrator certificates as authorization was eliminated under Public Act 289 of 1995, which went into effect July 1, 1996. Colorado law, in May 2000, clarified that certification is not a necessary condition of employment for school administrators; however, the state still issues certification. This, in effect, allows school districts to hire administrators based on qualifications set by the local board and supersedes state requirements. In 2001, the Florida legislature followed suit and decertified the position of school administrator, allowing Florida school districts to hire candidates without state certification (Archer, 2003). South Dakota did not require state certification of current administrators until July 2008, at which point existing noncertified administrators were given several certification options including a professional development plan or test option (Non-certified Administrators (CEOs & Business Managers) 2004).

Critics claim that allowing various forms of alternative certification in lieu of traditional certification only perpetuates the problems now facing today's schools by placing ill-prepared leaders in these positions (Dawning & Henry, 2003). However, very few studies have addressed these assumptions. A study by Pawlitschek (1986) found no significant differences in effectiveness between Minnesota certified and uncertified school administrators. Bradley (2006) compared the characteristics and preparation of alternatively and traditionally prepared Oklahoma school principals and concluded:

Traditionally prepared principals have more experience than do alternatively prepared principals.

Traditionally prepared principals' schools have a larger percentage of passing scores on all performance standards than do alternatively prepared principals' schools.

Alternatively prepared principals on average are older than traditionally prepared principals.

Alternatively prepared principals are more likely to work in larger school districts than traditional principals.

Alternatively prepared principals are more likely to work in schools with higher poverty level than traditionally prepared principals.

There were more minorities from the alternatively certified group of participants than from the traditionally prepared group of participants when analyzing by gender and ethnicity.

Others propose that alternative certification provides several benefits. First, it may create a larger pool of candidates from which to choose (Fenwick, 2000). Further, it may provide a more diverse group of school leaders and allow for leaders with a variety of experiences to assume school leadership positions. Currently, women tend to be underrepresented in some administrative positions such as the high school principalship and superintendency (Pounder, Galvin, & Shepherd, 2003). Additionally, diversity among school administrators continues to not reflect the populations they serve. Forty percent of all public school students are minorities; however, only 17.6% of the nation's principals report an ethnic background (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006). Black (2002) asserts that alternative certification may narrow the gaps between those school leaders who fall into specific ethnic, gender, and age groups. In fact, Bradley (2006) found that there was a higher percentage of minorities in the alternatively certified group compared to traditionally trained administrators. These findings suggest that alternative certification may be providing more opportunities for minorities specifically.

ISLLC Standards for School Leaders

Regardless of the method of certification, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), American Association of School Administrators' (AASA), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), and 23 state departments of education joined forces in 1994 to formalize standards for school leaders (Shipman & Murphy, 2001). The result of this alliance was the formation of the Interstate School Leader's Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed in 1996 by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Since then, more than 41 states adopted or adapted the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders for use in their school administrator certification process. Rather than academic course credits, the standards identify sets of skills and competencies to guide training and development efforts. Once adopted, states including Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina started to require universities and colleges to redesign their programs in school administration on the basis of these standards (Shipman & Murphy, 2001). Further, professional development programs, such as the Ohio Principals Leadership Academy and the Alabama Council of School Administration and Supervision, ground their professional development program on the standards (Murphy, 2001).

The six ISLLC Standards for School Leaders present a common core of knowledge, dispositions, and performances that are meant to link leadership more forcefully to productive schools and enhanced educational outcomes (ISLLC, 1996). A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by:

Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.

Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context. (pp. 10-21)

The School Leaders Licensure Assessment

The creation of the six standards also gave way to the development and implementation of assessment tools to be used in the certification of school administrators and recertification of practicing school leaders. The School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) was created in partnership with six states including Kentucky, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, and North Carolina, and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and is based on the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders (Anderson, 2002). Phase I development of the SLLA was originally completed in 1998. The purpose of the SLLA is to ensure that entry-level school administrators and other school leaders have the standards-relevant knowledge necessary for competent professional practice.

The SLLA is currently administrated by 14 states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands as a culminating activity following the completion of a university-based school administration program (ETS, 2008; Jensen, 2005). The SLLA was required in Georgia until the spring of 2008. Additionally, in South Carolina, the SLLA is a component of a first-year induction program for first-year principals but is not required for certification.

California Credential Requirements

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC, 2002), after sponsoring public forums, considering recommendations from a task force of K-12 and university representatives targeted the following objectives in the creation of revised certification requirements:

Objective 1: Provide greater flexibility to districts in employing individuals for administrative positions at the district level.

Objective 2: Recast administrator standards, preparation and induction to focus on instructional leadership, and success for all students.

Objective 3: Authorize alternative, accredited, standards-based routes to the credential, including preparation offered by local school districts.

Objective 4: Ensure licensure portability for administrators prepared in other states.

Objective 5: Restructure the professional clear credential requirements to focus on mentoring, support and assistance.

Objective 6: Allow capable, experienced individuals to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and abilities, consistent with credential requirements, through a combination of written and performance-based measures. (p. 1)

Objective six became the basis for Senate Bill 1655 (Scott) that was enacted as urgency legislation in 2002. The legislation made California the first state to implement legislation that allows school administrator candidates to "test out" of formal coursework requirements with a passing score on the SLLA while keeping the same prerequisites for an administrative certification; passing the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST); possessing a valid teaching or services credential; having a minimum of 3 years of successful, full-time service in the public schools or schools of equivalent status; and possessing verification of an offer of employment in an administrative position (CCTC, 2003a).

The creation of a certification via examination route in California was done in part to respond to barriers that might be preventing candidates from becoming school administrators and to address the statewide administrator shortage (Jensen, 2005). Interestingly, the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Board opposed the position to use the SLLA as a separate assessment option for the preliminary credential, despite any evidence there was a difference in the performance of site administrators certified via examination compared to those traditionally prepared (EdCal, 2003).

Statement of the Problem

Although both traditional and alternative routes of certification for school administrators exist, there is no evidence that demonstrates a significant difference in school site administrator performance based on certification type (Dawning & Henry, 2003). Authors suggest that alternative certification, including an examination option, may provide other benefits, including providing more school leaders and a larger pool of candidates from which to choose, thus eliminating the administrator shortage; creating a more diverse group of school leaders and allowing for leaders with a variety of experiences to assume school leadership positions; and lastly, it may narrow the gaps between those school leaders who fall into specific ethnic, gender, and age groups (Black, 2002; Fenwick, 2000). However, others continue to assert that alternative certification degrades the profession and provides candidates of lesser quality to assume school administrator positions (Dawning & Henry, 2003).

Since California has offered an alternative route to certification via examination, the most recent statistics available reveal the numbers of potential school administrators through this route have increased yearly. In 2003-2004, 679 examinees took the exam with the number growing to 962 in 2004-2005 (CCTC, 2006). The CCTC (2008) reported that 1,272 individuals became eligible and applied for a Certificate of Eligibility or Administrative Services Credential via examination between 2003 and 2006. However, very little is known about this potential group of administrators.

Although a pool of potential school administrators certified via examination exists, it is unknown how many have secured administrative employment, what positions they hold, or if they are experiencing success. Jensen (2005) questioned the employability of such candidates in California in a study of 68 superintendents and found that 48% indicated they would not consider school administrators who where certified by examination for employment. Superintendents stated they would be more likely to consider a school administrator certified via examination if the candidate were to receive formal mentoring and support upon hiring, have prior management experience in out-of-state or private schools, or have prior experience in a quasi-administrative role, such as an assistant-to-the-principal or teacher on special assignment. Conversely, the following were not considered relevant in the hiring of these candidates: significant teaching experience, current employee of the district, prior management experience (business, government), and administrator shortage.

Jensen's (2005) findings, in conjunction with the lack of research to support a connection between a passing score on the SLLA contributes to being an effective school administrator, suggest the employment options of applicants in California who demonstrate their knowledge of the ISLLC standards through examination may be limited. In turn, this may lessen the viability of the examination option as a means to alleviate the administrator shortage in California.

Although numerous studies have evaluated the characteristics and effectiveness of alternatively certified teachers in comparison with their traditionally trained counterparts (Sayler, 2003; Shen, 1997, Zeichner & Schulte, 2001), few studies have examined school administrators' characteristics or how their preparation and/or certification may influence the school leadership position (Bradley, 2006; Pawlitschek, 1986). Since California initiated certification via examination relatively recently, in 2003, no research has been conducted on this specific pool of school administrators.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare supervisors' assessments of traditionally certified site administrators and administrators certified via examination on leadership performance as measured by the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders.

Research Questions

Answers to the following questions were sought to address the purpose of the study:

What percentage of traditionally certified site administrators demonstrates each of the six standards for school leaders at the "highly effective," "effective," "ineffective," and "highly ineffective" levels, as assessed by their supervisors?

What percentage of site administrators certified via examination demonstrates each of the six standards for school leaders at the "highly effective," "effective," "ineffective," and "highly ineffective" levels, as assessed by their supervisors?

Is there a significant difference in the assessment of performance by the supervisors of traditionally certified site administrators and administrators certified via examination as measured by the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders?

Significance of the Study

This study will add to the literature that examines the certification of school administrators. Specifically, this study sought to fill the gaps in the literature by determining if differences exist in the leadership performance between traditionally certified administrators and administrators certified via examination in California based on the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders as assessed by their immediate supervisors.

The California Department of Education (CDE), CCTC, graduate schools and current educational leaders such as superintendents and human resource personnel may gain valuable information regarding the personal characteristics of school administrators who are certified via examination. Further, school district personnel responsible for hiring, most of whom were traditionally certified, may gain a better understanding of the leadership performance of school site administrators who have entered the profession via certification by examination. This may impact future hiring practices across the state and influence the employability of these administrators.

Research Methodology

This study will be a descriptive research study as described by Isaac and Michael (1995) in their Handbook in Research and Evaluation. The descriptive design is an appropriate type of design for this study as its purpose is "to observe systematically the facts and characteristics of a given population or area of interest, factually and accurately" (p. 50). Descriptive research is useful for investigating a variety of educational problems. Descriptive research data are usually collected through means of a survey, interviews, or observation (Gay, 1981). This study will utilize a survey to gather the information needed to compare traditionally certified school site administrators and administrators certified via examination. Creswell (2005) describes survey research as "quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey to a sample or to the entire population of people in order to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of the population" (p. 354). Further, survey research is an economical means of gathering data quickly. The survey to be used will be cross-sectional since the data will be collected at one point of time and self-administered.

According to Babbie (1990), survey designs are useful because certain types can be used not only to describe the characteristics of a population derived from data obtained from a sample, but they can be used to determine relationships between variables at the time of the study. In the present study, the differences noted between the supervisors' assessment of performance on the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders of traditionally certified site administrators and administrators certified via examination will be examined to determine if they differ in a statistically significant way.

Based on the advantages of this type of research strategy, a self-report survey of site administrators was the method chosen for identifying the study population and their demographic and personal characteristics, followed by a survey of their supervisors to determine their assessed performance on each of the six ISLLC Standards for School Leaders.

The survey instrument will be designed specifically for this study based on the construct of the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders. The survey will be designed to gather data to determine what percentage of site administrators certified traditionally and those certified via examination demonstrate each of the six standards for school leaders at the "highly effective," "effective," "ineffective," and "highly ineffective" levels, as assessed by their supervisors and to make comparisons among both groups. The survey will conducted via SurveyMonkey, a secure online survey provider. The instrument will be divided into six sections that correspond to one of the six standards. Within each of the standards, five performance indicators will be chosen for inclusion in the survey. In addition to defining the six standards, grouping in this manner also prevents the respondents from having to shift their thoughts from standard to standard, and organizes the survey into shorter and more manageable segments. Effectiveness was measured using a 4-point Likert scale, where 4 represented "highly effective," 3 represented "effective," 2 represented "ineffective" and 1 represented "highly ineffective." Likert-type survey items are frequently used to investigate the strength of respondents' feelings on a categorical scale (Dittrich, Francis, Hatzinger, & Katzenbeisser, 2007).

Population and Sample

The initial population for this study will be school site administrators employed in one of the 23 school districts located in Riverside County, California. The study sample will be selected to make comparisons about site administrators certified traditionally and those certified via examination in Riverside County. Within Riverside County, 465 schools are operated including elementary, middle/junior high, high, alternative ed/adult ed, and charter schools (Riverside County Office of Education [RCOE], 2008). According to the CDE, in 2006-2007, 1,514 administrators provide service in Riverside County. However, there is no distinction made between those administrators who work at a school site and those who serve as district-level administrators or work for the county office of education. This, the sample will be identified through the use of a demographic survey of all site administrators within Riverside County who were previously identified by their district of employment. The survey will be created to identify all site administrators who secured employment in 2003 or later, their certification route (traditional graduate program or via examination), and demographic and personal characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, years in education, years in administration, and current position and level served.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achilles, C., & Price W. (2001). What is missing in the current debate of about education administration. The AASA Professor, 24, 8-13.

Alvy, H., & Robbins, P. (2003). If I only knew . . . success strategies for navigating the principalship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Anderson, G. (2002). A critique of the test for school leaders. Educational Leadership, 59, 67-70.

Anthes, K. (2004). Administrator license requirements, portability, waivers and alternative certification. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Archer, J. (2003). Debate heating up on how to lure top-notch principals. Education Week, 22, 1, 12.

American Association of School Administrators (AASA). (2007). The AASA statement of ethics for educational leaders. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.aasa .org/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=2157

Adams, J. (1999, September-October). Good principals, good schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership Association of California School Administrators (ACSA).

Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). (2001). Recruitment and retention of school leaders: A critical state need. Task Force on Administrative Shortage. Sacramento, CA: ACSA. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://www.acsa.org/doc_files/AdminShort.pdf

Autry, J. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. New York: Three Rivers.

Babbie E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barth, R. (2001). Making happen what you believe in. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 446.

Bauck, J. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 71, 90-92.

Beem, K. (2003). Interim principalships: Filling an 11th hour need to buy time for a permanent successor. School Administrator, 60, 26.

Black, L. (2002). Personal and professional challenges faced by women who are administrators in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, 2002). (UMI No. 3053295)

Blackman, M., & Fenwick, L. (2000). The principalship. Education Week, 19, 68, 46.

Bjork L. (2000). Professional preparation and training. In T. Glass, L.Bjork, & C. C. Brunner (Eds.), The 2000 study of the American school superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium (pp. 127-166). Arlington, VA: American Associations of School Administrators.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It's time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Bradley, P. (2006). The characteristics and preparation of alternatively and traditionally certified Oklahoma school principals. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University. (UMI no. 3220245)

Bryant, M., Isernhagen, J., LeTendre, B., & Neu, B. (2003, April 21-25). Face to face with the ISLLC: Testing out the new school leaders licensure assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2002). Commission approves action plan for administrator preparation reform 2002. Bulletin.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2003a). Implementation of changes in requirements for earning administrative services credentials pursuant to SB 1655 (Scott) Chapter 225 of the Statutes of 2002. Coded correspondence 03-0002.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2003b). Proposed passing standard for the school leaders licensure assessment. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/agendas/2003-03/march_2003_PERF-2.pdf

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2003c). The examination alternatives for the administrative services credential. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/notices/coded/030008/030008.html

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2006). Report on passing rates of commission-approved exams for 2004-05. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/Exam-Pass-Rate-RPT-Apr-2006.pdf

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2007). Administrative services credential for administrators prepared in California. CL-574C 3/07.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). (2008). Service credentials issued in California 2001-2006. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/Service-Credentials-FY-2001-2006.pdf

California Department of Education (CDE). (2006). Developing highly qualified teachers and administrators initiative: A white paper on developing highly qualified teachers and administrators for California schools. Sacramento: CDE.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2008a) Education demographics unit: K-12 enrollment over time. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/DQ/EnrTimeRptSt.aspx?Level=State&cChoice=TSEnr1&cYear=2007-08&cLevel=State&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S

California Department of Education (CDE). (2008b) Education demographics unit: State summaries. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ page2.asp?level=State&subject=Paif&submit1=Submit

Campbell, R., Fleming, T., Newell, L., & Bennion. (1987). A history of thought and practice in educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . .and others don't. New York: Harper Business.

Cooley, V., & Shen, J. (1999) Who will lead? The top ten factors that influence teachers moving into administration. NASSP Bulletin, 83, 75-81.

Copland, M. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Crow, G., Mecklowitz, B., & Weekes, Y. (1992). From teaching to administration: A preparation institute. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Dawning, P., & Henry, J. (2003). The power to perform. Thomas B. Fordham Institute & Broad Foundation. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://fordhaminstitute.org/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=1

Dittrich, R., Francis, B., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (2007). A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of Likert-scale responses. Statistical Modelling, 7, 3-28.

Dufour, R. (2001). The principal in the right context. Journal of Staff Development, 25, 63-64.

EdCal. (2003). Tier 1 testing option cause for concern. (Excerpt) Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.acsa.org/publications/pub_detail.cfm?&edcalID=1153

EdSource. (2001, March). Help wanted: Top administrators to lead California schools. Report.

EdSource. (2007). Resource cards on California schools. Retrieved July 6, 2007, from http://www.edsource.org/sch_schman_admin0407.cfm

Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2000). School leaders licensure assessment study kit (Book 1). Princeton, NJ: Author.

Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2006). Understanding your school leadership series scores. Retrieved January 7, 2007, from http://ets.org/Media/Tests/SLS/ pdf/uysls_web.pdf

Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2008). School leadership series—state requirements. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/ menuitem.22f30af61d34e9c39a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=0fdc197a484f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

English, F. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 461.

Erickson, J. (2001). A rural strategy for filling principalships. School Administrator, 58, 40.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A. (with Syat, B., & Vine, J.) (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what's needed to fix public schools. New York: Public Agenda.

Fenwick, L. (2000). The principal shortage: Who will lead? Cambridge, MA: The Principals Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Fenwick, L., & Collins-Pierce, M. (2001). The principal shortage: Crisis or opportunity? Principal, 80, 25-32.

Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. In Jossey-Bass reader in educational leadership (pp. 156-163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gay, L. (1981). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Ginnodo, B. (1997). The power of empowerment: What the experts say and 16 actionable case studies. Arlington Heights, IL: Pride Publications.

Goehring, H. (1981). Statistical methods in education. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press.

Goldhammer, K. (1983). Evolution in the profession, Educational Administration Quarterly, 19, 249-272.

Gregg, R. (1960). Administration. In Harris C. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed., pp. 19-24). New York: MacMillan.

Groff, F. (2001). Who will lead? The principal shortage. State Legislatures, 27, 16. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Groff, F. (2003). Looking for school leaders. State Legislatures, 29, 33.

Hale E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC and Illinois Education Research Council, Edwardsville, IL: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Haller, E., Brent, B., & McNamara, J. (1997). Does graduate training in educational administration improve America's schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 222. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Harvey, T., Bearley, W., & Corkum, S. (2002). The practical decision maker. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Heller, R., Conway, J., & Jacobson, S. (1988, September). Here is your blunt critique of administrator preparation. The Executive Educator, 18-22.

Herrington, C., & Wills, B. (2005). Decertifying the principalship: The politics of administrator preparation in Florida. Educational Policy, 19, 181-200.

Hess, F. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America's schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation reform. Educational Policy, 19, 155-180.

Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (1996). The leaders of the future. Drucker Foundation Future Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holloway, A., Andrianaivo, S., & Perry, J. (2005). The pain outweighs the gain: Why teachers don't want to become principals. Teachers College Record, 107, 757-782.

Holloway, J. (2002). A defense of the test for school leaders. Educational Leadership, 59, 71-75.

Howley, A., Andrianaivo, S., & Perry, J. (2005). The pain outweighs the gain: Why teachers don't want to become principals. Teachers College Record, 107, 757-782.

Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. A report on the task force on the principalship. Washington, DC: Author.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (1996). Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved September 5, 2005 from http://www.ccsso.org/isllc.html

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd ed). San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Jensen, C. (2002). Graduates of California administrative services credential programs: Their assessment of institutional preparation. Educational Leadership and Administration, 14, 17-39.

Jensen, C. (2005). The employability of site administrators who obtained administrative certification by examination. National Forum of Educational and Supervision Journal-Electronic, 23(4).

Jones, J., & Bearley, W. (1994). Teambook. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ.

Kerrins, J., Johnstone, T., & Cushing, K. (2001). Take this job and fill it. Leadership, 30, 20-23. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0HUL/is_5_30/ai_75197101

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Lankford, H., O'Connell, R., & Wyckoff, J. (2003). Identifying the next generation of school leaders. Unpublished manuscript.

Lauder, A. (2000). The new look in principal preparation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 23-28.

Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Levenson, S. (2006). Fundraising help for school principals and other school leaders. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=1729

Lewis, A. (1997). Standards for new administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 99+. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart and good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Cotland, NY: Center for the 4th and 5th R's (Respect and Responsibility), and Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Livingston, S. (1998, April). Results of the pilot test of the school leaders' licensure assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Mazzeo, C. (2003). Issue brief: Improving teaching and learning by improving school leadership. Washington DC: National Governor's Association.

McAdams, R. (1998). Who'll run the schools? The coming administrator shortage. The American School Board Journal, 85, 37-39.

McCowan, C., Arnold, M., Miles, D., & Hargadine, K. (2000). Why principals succeed: Comparing principal performance to national professional standards. ERS Spectrum 18, 14-19.

Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. A paper commissioned by the Education and Training Policy Division, OECD.

Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Murphy, J. (1998). Preparation for the school principalship: The United States' story. School Leadership and Management, 18, 359.

Murphy, J. (2001). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards for school leaders. AASA Professor, 24, 2-6.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (January, 1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. Retrieved July 7, 2007, from http://www.naesp.org/client_files/shortage-98.pdf

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning communities: standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: NAESP.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1986). Digest of educational statistics: 1986. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Principal questionnaire: Schools and staffing survey 2003-2004. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ survey/sass

National Center for Education Information (NCEI). (2003). School administrator certification in the United States, state-by-state 2003: Principals and superintendents. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://ncei.com/2003_Principals_Superintendents/2003

National Commission for the Principalship. (1990). Principals for our changing schools: Preparation and certification. Fairfax, VA: NCP.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for America's Schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council on Educational Administration.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Council of Chief State School Officers

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). 107 H.R., 107th Congress, 1st session.

Non-certified Administrators (CEOs & Business Managers). 2004. Senate Bill 173 SDCL 13-42-28.

Normore, A. (2006). Leadership recruitment and selection in school districts: Trends and issues. Journal of Educational Thought, 40, 44-77.

Papa, F., & Baxter, I. (2005). Dispelling the myths and confirming the truths of the imminent shortage of principals: The case of New York State. Planning and Changing, 36, 217-235.

Pawlitschek, E. (1986). A comparison of unlicensed to licensed building-level public school administrators: Their roles and effectiveness. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. (AAT 8620168; Proquest ID no. 75423556)

Pounder, D., & Merrill, R. (2001). Lost luster. School Administrator, 58, 18. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Pounder, D., Galvin, P., & Shepherd, P. (2003). An analysis of the United States educational administrator shortage. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 133+. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Riverside County of Education. (2008, February). Report to the community. Retrieved July, 10, 2008, from http://204.100.65.49/communityReport/demographics.html

Sayler, B. (2003). Alternatively and traditionally certified teachers: The same and different. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 16-27.

Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schaffer, R., & Thomson, H. (1992). Successful change programs begin with results. Harvard Business Review, 70(l), 80-89.

Shen, J. (1997). Has alternative certification policy materialized its promise? A comparison between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 276-283.

Shen, J., Cooley, V., Ruhl-Smith, C., & Keiser, N. (1999). Quality and impact of educational leadership programs: A national study. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://questia.com

Shipman, N., & Murphy, J. (2001). Standards for school leaders: Gaining momentum. Principal Leadership (high school edition), 1, 69-70.

Strizek, G., Pittsonberger, J., Riordan, K., Lyter, D., & Orlofsky, G. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sykes, G. (2000). Model of preparation for the professions: Implications for school leadership. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.

Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for America's schools: A manifesto. With a foreword by C. E. Finn Jr. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://fordhaminstitute.org/institute/ publication/publication.cfm?id=1

Tirozzi, G. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 434-440.

Tucker, M., & Codding, J. (Eds.) (2002). The principal challenge: Leading and managing school sin an era of accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). (2004). Occupational handbook. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). (2008). Occupational handbook. Washington, DC: Author.

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: With 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

White, P., Harvey, T., & Kemper, L. (2007). The politically intelligent leader: dealing with the dilemmas of a high-stakes educational environment. Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Education.

Young, M., Peterson, G., & Short, P. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 137-175.

Zeichner, K., & Schulte, A. (2001). What we know and don't know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 31-40.