CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

No one can say for certain how the schools of the new century will differ from those of the past century-but there can be little doubt that these schools will require different forms of leadership.

—Anonymous Member, Task Force on Reinventing the Principalship

Background of the Problem

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).

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. 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 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).

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 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.

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 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 has adopted the SLLA as a stand-alone replacement for a traditional preparation program as part of their certification requirements. This was done in 2002 during a revamping of the school administrator certification process in the state.

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 (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. The six standards address shared vision, school culture, management, collaboration, ethics, and community advocating.

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.

Assumptions

This study is based on the assumption that there are school administrators who have entered the field of administration by obtaining certification via examination in Riverside County. Further, it is assumed that through the survey process, it is possible to achieve sufficient understanding of the assessed performance of school site administrators as measured by the supervisors, and that all questions were answered openly and honestly.

Definitions of Terms

Alternative certification (California). The SLLA has been selected as the Preliminary Administrative Services examination alternative. The academic requirements include:

Possession of a valid prerequisite teaching or services credential;

A minimum of three years successful, full-time service in the public schools or schools of equivalent status;

Passage of the California Basic Skills Test (CBEST);

Passage of the SLLA; and

Verification of an offer of employment in an administrative position.(CCTC, 2003c, p. 1)

Demographic characteristics. Demographic characteristics refer to age, gender, and ethnicity of participants.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) is a representative body of most of the major stakeholders in educational leadership including national associations, states, and colleges and universities. The ISLLC was organized by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and was formed for the purpose of developing model standards and assessments for school leaders (Hale & Moorman, 2003).

School administrator. School administrators are certificated employees who are not teachers or pupil services personnel (EdSource, 2007).

Site administrator. Site administrators are school administrators that specifically work at a school site, not at a district office or county office of education. Examples include: principal, assistant principal, vice principal, dean of students, and student advisor.

School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA). A 6-hour test that consists of authentic written situations and problems, each accompanied by one or more questions requiring a written response. The assessment is published by ETS based on the ISLLC program standards (ETS, 2006).

Traditional preparation. To prepare and qualify one to serve in the capacity of school administrator by acquiring the leadership knowledge, skills, and competencies through an accredited college and/or university or another relevant educational program

Traditional certification (California). The minimum requirements for the preliminary services credential with a specialization in administrative services are all of the following:

1. Possess one of the following:

(A) A valid California teaching credential requiring the possession of a baccalaureate degree and a professional preparation program including student teaching.

(B) A valid California Designated Subjects Teaching Credential provided the candidate also possesses a baccalaureate degree.

(C) A valid California services credential in Pupil Personnel Services, Health Services, Library Media Teacher Services, or Clinical or Rehabilitative Services requiring a baccalaureate degree and a program of professional preparation, including field practice or the equivalent.

2. Complete one of the following:

(A) A commission-approved program of specialized and professional preparation in administrative services which results in the formal recommendation of the program sponsor.

(B) A one-year administrative services internship consisting of supervised in-service training taken through a California college or university with an approved internship program and obtain the recommendation of a California college or university with a Commission-approved program. (CCTC, 2007, p. 1)

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter I includes a background of the problem, statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of the study, the research questions that guided the study, and definitions of terms.

Chapter II is a literature review that focuses on the role of school administrators, administrator shortage, administrator preparation and certification, and characteristics of school administrators.

Chapter III is the methodology for the study and reviews the purposes of the study, research questions, data collection, and analysis of data.

Chapter IV consists of the data analysis and findings of the study. The findings will be guided by the research questions of the study.

Chapter V presents a scenario, conclusions, implications and recommendations for further research.