The Crowd in the Principal’s Office 41to construct local practices that achieve those goals implies a challenging set of standards for
preparation. Unless candidates are broadly prepared, it is difficult for the field to argue that
local practitioners can achieve the reliable results that the public expects from professionals.
On the other hand, state licensing for educators has generally been more “essentialist” (Imig
& Imig, 2006), limited to technical skills that are easily defined and assessed. Minimum
requirements, in turn, encourage the development of narrowly designed programs, making it
more difficult either to attract candidates to more rigorous programs or to guarantee high-
quality practice.
The challenge, then, is to sustain a robust view of principal competence, so that the
profession can assure a skeptical public that individual practitioners have the expertise and
commitments needed for reliable results. Much has been written about the importance of
standards for both individual certification and program accreditation as education professions
address this dilemma (Yinger, 1999). My recommendations here address an underlying issue
related to university responsibility for preparation. Despite the seeming paradox, I argue that
limiting the scope of university responsibility might be the best way to sustain a
comprehensive definition of needed principal competencies.
Once again, the recommendation departs from conventional ideas of professional
advancement. The development of university-based preparation programs and university
stewardship for the knowledge that supports practice have been central to establishment of
professional status. In school administration, university programs were established even
before a scholarly foundation for practice existed, giving credibility to early efforts to develop
professional influence and autonomy (Tyack, 1974). As with other professions, though, a
debate continues over the relative value of apprenticeship and academic models of preparation
(Sullivan, 2005), so it is not surprising that university preparation for school leaders seems
constantly under attack (Hess, 2003; Levine, 2005).
Another concern is that relinquishing even a part of the university’s responsibility for
preparation could make it difficult for preparation programs to operate within the fiscal
models of most universities, which depend on courses and tuition to generate the revenue
needed to support faculty salaries and research. And, if the university role in preparation is
not sufficient to support traditional faculty members, this could undermine the university’s
capacity to develop and sustain the knowledge base for practice.
Despite these risks, sharing responsibility for preparation offers a promising strategy to
prepare principals for reliable local practice that is guided by civic community dialog.
Preparation for the principalship differs from many professions in that it typically occurs at
mid-career, after experience as teachers and often other positions in schools. It therefore has
as much in common with leadership development from within organizations as it does with
initial professional preparation. Three aspects of leadership preparation identified in this
literature—personal development, leadership development, and leadership education—
provide a useful foundation for considering how responsibility for preparing principals could
be shared between universities and school districts:
Personal development—working toward emotional maturity by building knowledge of
self and others—provides a foundation for much of the people-intensive work of school
leadership (Goleman, 1998). The ability to build and sustain effective relationships is critical
to leadership roles in many different organizations (Bunker, Kram, & Ting, 2002), and seems
particularly important to the task of fostering professional learning communities in schools
(Spillane & Louis, 2002). Personal maturity is also needed to establish the positive mood and
tone associated with effective collaborative work (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).
Both school districts and universities can provide some support for emotional development by