Contextualized Principal Preparation for the Improvement of American Indian Education 249administrative meetings and has equal voice in decisions, I wonder who is running the district
anymore.” Another principal stated, “I LEAD students attend administrative meetings where
decisions are made but are viewing these decisions from a teacher perspective. Some then use
this information to undermine the decisions of the administration.”
Course assignments submitted by students varied in quality and usefulness toward
engaging the community. Among the best projects was a plan developed at a middle school
where members of the community would be invited to share their wisdom to students
regarding cultural heritage and clan histories. Conversely, students then shared their
knowledge and skills of technology with the community members. This project engaged
community members in school activities in a meaningful way and spoke directly to tribal
customs of oral tradition and establishing reciprocal connections of honor. Another project
involved teachers outlining lesson objectives and requested family members to provide
content materials to fit the objectives as a collaborative effort to meet the Indian Education for
All initiative requirements in Montana schools. Other student projects involved collaborating
with family members in ways that promoted cultural heritage, facilitated engagement in
currently established school family centers, and enlisted involvement in family math and
reading game nights.
DISCUSSION
In evaluating the alignment between the plan for contextual principal preparation and the
contextualization that took place, there was evidence of limited success. The graduate
students who used the contextual focus of the I LEAD curriculum did so with aplomb.
Students who took on school-wide leadership responsibilities were perceived by
administrators at their schools as contributing to school improvement. Those students who
did not venture beyond their classrooms were not seen as contributing to school improvement,
and their administrators expressed a lack of confidence in their leadership potential and
ability.
The selection process required strong recommendations (letters) from principals and/or
superintendents for all I LEAD students; yet, principals and superintendents in face-to-face
conversation indicated that only about half of the I LEAD students had leadership potential.
Such a disconnection between the letters of recommendation and the verbal evaluations of
leadership potential was perplexing. Part of the intent for school/district visits was to
strengthen the partnership between I LEAD students and the administrators of their schools.
However, many principals and superintendents were uninterested in strengthening the
partnership when they viewed the graduate student(s) as not having potential for leadership.
On the other hand, when the graduate students were viewed as having leadership potential, the
partnership was already strong. Traditionally, education administrators have been asked by
university faculty to comment only on scholastic potential. Identifying and developing
leadership talent for practice was seen as a practitioner role by practitioners. Thus, requesting
recommendations on leadership potential stretches the existing paradigm. More research
needs to be done in this area.
Part of the programmatic expectations was for students to step-up to leadership positions
within their school as part of their pre-service training. Such expectations are institutionalized
in our traditional program; for example, students are expected to have amassed at least 100
hours of school or community leadership activities before entering into the 3 credit field
experience (which is similar to the internship in many principal preparation programs). Yet,
only half of the students were seen as teacher leaders within their schools despite the