Forging Effective School Leaders: A Case Study in One State College

 Phyllis Gimbel
Deven Antani
Bridgewater State College

Introduction
     What is it, precisely, that constitutes a successful principal practicum? Is it hands on experience? Is it the ability to shadow a knowledgeable administrative veteran? Or is it the ability to meaningfully connect coursework to practice? Perhaps it is all of these or even none of these. This subject of the site-based experience of educational leadership programs, known as the principal practicum, presents an added sense of urgency when thrust against the backdrop of the importance school administrators have taken on over recent decades. Where once school administrators were largely concerned with what equated to managerial duties, now they are expected to be multi-faceted creatures that are equal parts disciplinarian, financial wizard, social scientist, and expert instructor.
     In Turning Points 2000, Jackson and Davis (2000) assert that “no single individual is more important to initiating and sustaining improvement” of performance in secondary school students than the school principal (p. 157). Furthermore, Jackson and Davis contend that “one of the most consistent findings in educational research is that high achieving schools have strong, competent leaders” (p. 156). It would be prudent to discern exactly what elements of the principal practicum experience give birth to such strong, competent leaders since flooding the pool of potential administrative candidates with less than stellar aspirants will only further the diminution of public school leadership.
     Thus, through examination of our own college’s principal practicum, we measured said practicum against currently accepted best practice in the realm of administrator preparation programs to see just where this one is proficient and where it is deficient and in need of enduring a reformation. For the purposes of this study, the term “practicum” will be operationally defined as a three-hundred and fifty hour field experience that has a cooperating practitioner (a principal who has served in this role for at least 3 years, known as the mentor principal), an aspiring principal (usually graduate student), coupled with a college supervisor who acts as a tether between the institution of higher learning, the practicum site, and the mentoring principal.
     Three pillars guided our inquiry regarding the efficacy of our college principal practicum. These pillars serve as the underlying support for any successful administrative field experience. 
     The first of these pillars is the connectivity between academic coursework and on site activities during the practicum.  Second, any flourishing, meaningful practicum experience has a firm set of expectations for the student/mentor relationship that govern not just what is experienced, but how. There is an essential requisite of authenticity that necessarily must accompany any administrative practicum. Finally, those cooperating principals who are tasked with mentoring and shepherding hopeful future administrators must necessarily be of the highest quality and should be well versed in the mentorship process with clear guidelines spelled out to govern the process. These caveats are instrumental in understanding why certain practicum experiences are assessed as being successful when they ultimately yield future administrators who are less than prepared for the unique demands that the principalship entails. Through examining these three central aspects of the principal practicum, it was possible to understand why such programs succeed and why they fail.
Connecting Theory to Practice
     Current research (Jackson and Kelley, 2002; Knapp, Copland, and Talbert, 2003) seems to suggest that while the principal practicum is potentially the aspect of administrator preparation programs most pregnant with potential meaning for students, it is also the least well executed facet of such programs and area most in need of transformation. In one survey of principals, the respondents appraised their practicum experience as “having little or no value in their professional development” (Petzco and Clark et. al., 2002). Research indicates that curriculum featuring “tightly integrated theory and practice” (Olson, 2007, p. 16) is the most successful in forging effective administrators as it gives students a practical forum to test their theoretical foundation firsthand. Thus, to the extent that these academic and practical dimensions of educational leadership programs are bonded in a fruitful, relevant fashion is the extent to which participants conceptualize such programs as being successful. Academic disciplines that are frequently rated by current administrators as being indispensable are “supervision and evaluation (91%), instructional leadership (89%), legal issues (85%), technology (84%), special education issues (84%), program evaluation (83%), and curriculum development (77%)” (Petzko  and Clark et al., p. 12). These various focal points of the curriculum, however, should not be divorced from the district-specific needs and situations that are unique to every region. Measuring and “understanding the existing and budding environmental influences is of extreme importance to school administrators” (Hoy and Miskel, 2005, p. 241). Meanwhile, noting that “typical leadership programs in graduate schools of education are out of touch with the realities of what it takes to run today’s school districts” (Farkas et al.2003, p. 39) there must be an increased collaborative spirit between university principal preparation programs and the districts which they aspire to serve. 
     Arthur Levine crystallized this sentiment as he observed that while a good number of aspiring administrators want opportunities to connect coursework with their field experience “meaningful clinical instruction is rare in school leadership programs” (2006, p. 4). Levine suggested that meaningful clinical instruction is present only in the most tokenistic of incarnations, partly because students have their field experience “squeezed in” while working full time and juggling the corresponding workload. Such input could provide educational leadership programs with much needed currency in their curriculum.
Authenticity of the Practicum Experience
     The coupling of skillful mentors with aspiring school leaders is another tenet of successful preparatory programs for administrators. A quality administrative experience is predicated upon being paired with a quality administrator. Bolman and Deal (1993) identify mentoring as a rich and continuing part of any principal’s professional life. An indispensable aspect of any effective educational leadership program is the ability to aptly prime mentoring principals for the role they will invariably play in the growth of hopeful school leaders. Pertinent materials need to be distributed to these cooperating administrators, perhaps most suitably in the form of comprehensive handbooks. According to the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) these handbooks should detail the expectations of mentoring principals, “candidates and faculties; required activities; expectations for candidates’ performance; and process for working with candidates” (2006, p. 60).
     “Less than two-thirds of the universities that SREB surveyed, provide cooperating principals with handbooks or other materials describing the required activities and other expectations or conditions” for on site experiences (2006, p. 6). Failure to disseminate such materials arguably might lead to a lack of cohesion between the cooperating principal, aspiring administrator, and university supervisor. Without a universal understanding of expectations it is understandable if unsatisfactory that there is a lack of standardization between field experiences.  Through crafting source literature to which principals and practicum members can refer, educational leadership programs augment the practicum experience and provide for a unified vision of what the administrative field experience can and should be.
     Literature created and disseminated by the university should contain a set of explicit guidelines and activities for site based application of ideas, strategies, and practices taught in the academic segment of the principal preparation program. There should be a continuum of experiential learning outlined, wherein students graduate from mere observation to engagement in authentic, hands on leadership activities. Mentors who are the most successful scaffold through modeling, coaching, and gradually allowing for an increased responsibility in the school that is proportional to the increased knowledge base attainted by the student (Lave, 1991). Finally, cooperating principals and principal candidates both need to be conscious of how their performances will be evaluated. Understandably, then, copies of evaluation rubrics should be provided in the university-provided literature packets for all participants to read prior to the actual practicum.
     Another critical failure that precipitates from a paucity of communication between university liaisons and on site administrators is the inability to properly prepare mentoring principals for interaction with their inbound student. To be sure, in a survey of a number of educational leadership programs, many fail to provide proper training to prepare mentors for the rigors of the mentorship process (SREB, 2006) over which these candidates are expected to ultimately exhibit their mastery. There are few, if any, mechanisms in place, the SREB report claims, designed to impart joint accountability on behalf of both the mentor and the protégé for successful mastery of standards and competencies (2006). It is clearly and distinctly perceived that there is a need for school districts and institutions of higher education to work collaboratively in an endeavor to render the most meaningful and purposeful field experience possible for future administrators. In this instance, current principals have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom to share with their administrative apprentice; however, if expectations are not illuminated then it would be unfair to hoist such lofty goals upon the unsuspecting shoulders of the mentor. Uniform handbooks should be distributed well in advance of the actual practicum experience so that busy school administrators will have time to review and analyze expectations in ahead of actually meeting with university officials and, of course, the aspiring principal. 
     Caroline McCullen (2006) posited that districts that have struck a partnership with educational leadership programs offer students the most effective field experience because they are able to provide “opportunities to work with principals outside the participants’ own school district” (SREB, 2006, p. 41). Consequently, it follows that what gets taught is every bit as critical as where theory is allowed to unfurl in the practical domain. An obvious benefit that results from such a cooperative relationship between districts and universities is that participants are given opportunities to work in schools that can be considerably different than that which with one might be familiar. The educational landscape is constantly in flux, it follows that effective administrative preparation programs offer multiple venues for applying new knowledge in practical settings (Daresh, 2001). 
     Even Arthur Levine weighed in on the matter of inadequate clinical settings when he forwarded the notion that since students, wrought with the burden of academic and professional expectations, tend to complete their clinical experience “where they are already employed, regardless of whether the school of its presiding administrator is successful” (Levine, 2006, p. 4). Consideration needs to be given to where practicum experiences occur and with whom as these are every bit as vital to ultimate success as the student’s own initiative, determination, and reservoir of administrative expertise. It is easy to understand the practicum as nothing more than a process of only slightly involved observation, but to do so would be to miss the real nature of the administrative practicum as a process of empowerment. While serving in familiar environs does have certain distinct advantages, the surroundings will not always be so intimate when one assumes one’s first true administrative position. As such, lessons in flexibility and adaptability must be learned to mastery if one is truly to be deemed as worthy of an administrative post in the future.
      Without occupying an office of genuine leadership wherein one can gather data, analyze data, take the lead in planning, and ultimately implement a plan designed to bring about a positive change, one cannot be considered prepared for the rigors of the principalship. A study conducted by the SREB (2006) revealed that principal candidates spent the majority of their time observing and participating while few were afforded genuine opportunities to assume a position of leadership. It should come as no surprise, then, that “Only about a third of programs surveyed put aspiring principals into situations where they can gain a comprehensive understanding of what they must know and do to lead changes in school and classroom practices” (SREB, p. 5).  With this in mind, it would appear indispensable to quality principal preparation programs that aspiring administrators be able to take the lead in authentic activities designed to assess and subsequently address a school’s needs. This, for all intents and purposes, the requisite of authenticity that must pervade educational leadership programs if these programs are to be effectual.
Preparedness of Mentoring Principal
     Cooperating principals need to model the desired behaviors and strategies that a given university program wishes to see manifested in the aspiring student administrator. Allowing these students to observe and participate in only the most tokenistic of fashions seemingly deprives them of invaluable learning experiences and leaves them ill-equipped for the real world obstacles confronted daily by real world principals. 
     According to the SREB, (2006), a key indicator of an effective practicum is the practical application of knowledge to authentic problems.  As such, SREB contends that there are many principal site based experiences that have such lax standards that students are able to satisfy requirements for administrative practicum experiences without any profound or significant engagement (2006, p. 29). The Southern Regional Board, in fact, suggested that aspiring school administrators should engage in one major school academic improvement or action research project, which would include such components as identifying needs, devising interventions for closing the achievement gap, and then measuring results. To ensure that cooperating principals not only understand but also satisfy that what is expected of them, it is suggested that a mechanism for joint accountability be instituted along with university liaisons, faculty, or program supervisors for providing a rich, substantive onsite experience. 
     Given that educators occupy a world in which “Political, social, economic, and demographic changes are introducing unparalleled opportunity, unexpected crises, and seemingly intractable problems” for school leaders (Murphy and Beck, 1994, p. 3), aspiring leaders need to be hardened in the forge of authentic experiential learning.  Supportive cooperating or mentor administrators are an integral tenet of principal preparation programs that produce effective school leaders. Meaningful practica require close supervision by veteran effective administrators (SREB, 2006). Aspiring leaders need to be equipped with the necessary tools to navigate the complex terrain of stimulating school change through data-driven initiatives in an age of accountability.
Research Methods and Design
     During the past half decade, controversy has surrounded the quality of a vital aspect of school administrator preparation programs, the principal practicum. We explored current pedagogical thinking regarding school leadership training and how principals benefit from graduate programs aimed at certifying school administrators. We examined elements of the principal practicum to determine its efficacy. Three components of effective site based administrative experiences guided our study: connectivity between coursework and on site activities, expectations for mentors and principal candidates, and quality mentoring.
     Keeping the focus of our mixed methods study in mind as well as our desire to use the data to impact our practicum, we conducted a survey supplemented by electronic interviews, an interview with the Practicum Coordinator, observations of practicum meetings, and a review of student portfolios. Survey data findings were cross-validated with review of electronic portfolios and review of interview data.
Data Collection
Sample
     Since our goal was to obtain as much information as soon as possible for program impact, we used a convenience sample. The sample was composed of both current students and those who graduated from the Educational Leadership Program within the past 3 years. According to student enrollment, participants were of mixed gender, ranging in age from 24 to 56 years of age. Records from our newly established Office of Diversity show 2.5% to 3.7% students of color enrolled in the Educational Leadership Program from fall of 2004 to fall of 2006.There are no available records for the academic year 2007.
Survey
     Our 11 question, Likert type survey was designed to see how the principal onsite field experience impacted leadership capabilities of our current students and recent graduates. Our questionnaire was designed to examine which components of our principal training program were most helpful to aspiring administrators and which could be refined. Some of these components included the mentor principal, college supervisor, and the site based experience itself.
     In order to assure participant confidentiality, we went to the Institutional Review Board to develop a confidential online survey as well as to draft a letter of informed consent. In this manner, current and former students could be assured anonymity.
     We surveyed 70 current and recent graduates of our Educational Leadership Program. Having contacted 180 current and former students, we had a 39 % response rate. We then created an electronic survey and followed up with a mailed, hard copy for respondents to return in a stamped, addressed envelope.
Interviews
      We conducted 14 electronic interviews, using a random sample (1 in 5) of those subjects who responded to our survey. The 5 open-ended interview questions allowed respondents opportunity to elaborate on the Likert type survey questions. We asked participants what types of resources they received, how the college supervisor impacted their learning, how being in a principal practicum at the same place they were employed as teachers shaped their experience, what kind of opportunities they had to impact change in their practicum experiences, and what mentor principals might do to allow administrative interns opportunity to lead groups of teachers in school change.
     To gain an additional perspective on the practicum experience, we interviewed the Practicum Coordinator via email and telephone. We inquired about the specific qualifications of becoming a college supervisor, whether or not there was a practicum handbook, and if a training course for mentor principals and college supervisors existed.
Observations
     One of us attended the 2 practicum meetings. The first session was held at the beginning of the yearlong practicum experience (September, 2006) while the second was held at the end of the practicum (May, 2007). Attendance at these 2 meetings offered an opportunity to observe interactions between current practicum students and the Practicum Coordinator. We also wanted to see if any documents were distributed to the student interns. The goal of the observations was to create an additional data point to triangulate or further confirm the findings.
Document Review
     In order to triangulate the data, we examined 14 student electronic portfolios, a number equal to the electronic interviews we conducted with our students. Portfolios were randomly selected. We also reviewed handouts distributed at the initial practicum meeting and those distributed at the final practicum meeting, rounding out the data collection process. At the initial practicum meeting in September, students were given a list of leadership standards with suggested activities they could perform in their practicum to fulfill each standard. They were also given a packet on how to set up their online portfolios. At the final meeting in May, students received a list of suggestions about how to find an administrative position. Based upon our investigation, there was no student handbook articulating practicum expectations for mentor principals, college supervisors and student interns.
Analysis
     After we compiled the survey results, we disaggregated the data into an Excel spread sheet to see how current students (N=31) responded in comparison to recent program graduates (N=39). Student interview data were studied to cross-validate survey data. Information obtained from document collection and from the interview with the Practicum Coordinator was reviewed to substantiate or differentiate the data collected from other sources.
Results and Discussion
     One of the more damaging claims levied against principal preparation programs is that they fail to aptly prime aspiring administrators for the role of school leader.  Recently, a national study was conducted which found that among respondents just 4% felt that graduate school studies did more to prepare them for their position than actual, on the job experiences or tutelage given by administrative co-workers (Farkas et al., 2003). The results of Farkas’ study appear to indicate that “typical leadership programs in graduate schools of education are out of touch with the realities of what it takes to run today’s school districts” (Farkas, p. 39). The practicum field experience is the facet of all administrative preparation programs that most closely mirrors the rigors and challenges of actual, on the job school leadership.
     Table 1 shows that the site based field experience (practicum) was more valuable than experiences in the graduate school classroom. One respondent said, “I learned what goes on behind the scenes in a school setting. As a graduate student and a classroom teacher, I did not realize the big picture.” A well planned, well executed practicum experience can, in almost every way, rival one’s nascent experiences when adopting a genuine role in school administration.  For this reason, exploration of the practicum and methods by which to improve the honing of leadership skills through said practicum is essential. 
     The component of the practicum that was deemed as being least effective was the liaison between our college and the cooperating practicum site, the person designated as the College Supervisor (see Table 2). This surprising finding is echoed in Table 2 which details students’ perceptions of how much their college practicum supervisor/liaison shaped their internship experience. An overwhelming majority of participants in our study (66%) said that their practicum supervisor had little or no influence on their overall repertoire of leadership skills (see Table 2) when asked what impact their College Supervisor had on their current leadership capabilities.  One potential reason for this seeming ineffectuality is that our college supervisors are not uniformly from a background of education administration.  In fact, the Practicum Coordinator said that as far as he knew the only qualifications necessary to attain such a post was a “willingness to do the job and a brief introductory meeting with the Coordinator of the Educational Leadership program.” Moreover, the Practicum Coordinator remarked in an interview that college supervisors are not trained in how to evaluate their interns, yet they are the sole evaluators of the practicum experience.
     Student online interviews corroborated this notion. One student commented, “My college supervisor was encouraging and supportive as best as she could be, though the fact that she had never herself been a school administrator hampered the sort of practical advice she could give.” Another student mentioned, “My college supervisor continually checked up on me and gave me any advice he could regarding the practicum. My complaint would be that the college supervisors seemed to lack any real authority to help get my cooperating/mentor principal more involved and this lack of authority sometimes could really hurt the experience.”
     We asked our respondents whether or not they had completed their practicum experiences at their home school (the school in which they were also employed) or at another venue. Nearly 96% of those who participated in our study indicated that their practicum site selection was predicated upon the “convenience and familiarity” of their home school rather than the challenges and diversity that non-home school sites have to offer (see Table 3).  The SREB (2006) in their report entitled, “Schools Can’t Wait:  Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs,” posit that one hallmark of a meaningful internship experience are “placements that provide opportunities to work with diverse students, teachers, parents and communities”(p. 6). Our online questionnaire responses resonate with an overriding preference for convenience over quality when selecting one’s field placement site. Here are some of the student responses: “This was extremely beneficial in my day to day understanding of how schools run…This made it easier for me to involve myself in various committees…No wasted time for traveling. I knew the people, the rules, and the building.”
     Time constraints were evident in being employed on a full-time basis at one site while attempting to log practicum hours at an alternative site for the sake of diversity. Yet, because so many individuals use their home school they similarly trade authenticity for an aura of familiarity that cannot be assured to exist when assuming an actual administrative position. Job openings may not necessarily be at one’s home school, nor may the climate of one’s home school remain static. Adapting to change is an indispensable and definitive trait that defines just what it means to be an administrator.  
     Along these lines, data from our online survey includes 40% of the total number of responding students suggesting that the one change they would make to the entire practicum experience would be to select a site based on their ability to perform genuine, authentic, relevant leadership activities and affect school change (see Table 4). This response not only reveals the desire of students to select their internship site, but also to be afforded real opportunities to lead rather than continuing in what one student referred to as “token observations of real leadership activities.”  Disaggregated data from Table 4 also suggests that 59% of recent graduates share this notion while only 16% of current students felt this way. We attribute this discrepancy to the time in the academic year at which we contacted current students. They were in the early part of their practicum experiences and could not foresee this aspect of school leadership training.
     A problem commonly cited by study participants, in the survey and interviews, was the fact that working in one’s home school led to one being type-caste and trivialized because faculty and staff operated under certain assumptions regarding one’s abilities that were made prior to and irrespective of one’s performance during the practicum. Some student comments reveal this: “In my school I cannot do much sharing of leadership responsibility… My school did not allow me to do much as an intern.”
     Those principal candidates who were thought of as tough, disciplinarian teachers were regarded comparably as aspiring principals, while those who were thought of as gentler, student-oriented teachers were likewise treated in a manner befitting that conceptualized regardless of how they portrayed themselves as administrators. It has been contended by a few in our study that familiarity was beneficial as they were able to act with foreknowledge of personalities and existing conflicts, most participants, however, found that preconceived notions of ability and character impeded the efficacy of the administrative practicum.        
     University programs must enter into collaborative endeavors that allow students to gain experience in schools other than the one in which they work while still taking into consideration the various professional and personal commitments that will invariably monopolize a great portion of an administrative candidate’s time.
     In a separate follow up question, we asked those surveyed what kind of opportunity they had to lead groups of teachers in school change and/or instructional practices. Sixty-four percent of those participating in our study said they received little or no opportunity to lead groups of teachers in school change and instructional practices (see Table 5). Only 14% reported being able to employ such leadership practices to a good or great extent. A recent study on the principal practicum conducted by the SREB yields an interesting fact when it cites that, after reviewing their survey data, aspiring principals “spend the majority of their time observing” but are afforded “few opportunities to take the leading role in” the prescribed leadership activities (SREB,  2006, p. 36). The same report suggests that “a developmental continuum of practice that progresses from observing to participating in and then to leading school-based activities” (p. 6) should be present during any effective, authentic onsite experience. This continuum should be facilitated by principals who demonstrate the desired leadership behavior and who know how to guide principal candidates through required activities and not those who hoard their power and espouse decidedly less then stellar leadership qualities.
     Though purely speculative, one participant in our survey suggested that school leaders are far too loath to trust and consequently to share power and that this was to the detriment of grooming new leaders. Yet another individual theorized that in an age of unrivaled accountability, who could blame principals for not giving a portion of control over their school, however small in amount, to a novice. Data from our study suggests that the cooperating or mentor principal was the second most influential feature of the practicum with practicum participants, positing that to the extent to which principals were cooperative, in addition to having a willingness to share power and expertise was the extent to which the experience was deemed a fruitful one. A participant remarked, “Principals can trust us to get a job done or try a new idea. Why can’t they trust us to run a program that could impact school culture?” Another student lamented, “I did not take a leadership role at my building. I was not encouraged to take a role of this nature by my cooperating principal. He basically left it up to me to meet the practicum requirements, in spite of being asked several times and meeting with my supervisor to look over my proficiencies.” A third student corroborated this in her comment, “My principal provided little in the way of how I could enhance my experience. He offered very little input about what he wanted to see happen or the ways in which my practicum could benefit the school. While he is a nice man, his leadership skills are non-existent. My cooperating principal directly contributed to my lack of meaningful experiences.” Since students at our college choose their practicum site based upon convenience, it appears from our data that the cooperating principal is not trained to be a mentor. Evidence suggests that the mentor principals do not know how to offer authentic leadership opportunities to aspiring school leaders. A practicum handbook would outline expectations of   mentor principals, college supervisors, and students. No evidence of a handbook for the principal practicum appeared in our document review.
     Finally, a key statistic derived from our study is that only 33% of those surveyed answered affirmatively when asked if they had used the school improvement plans that were crafted at the site of each student’s field placement (see Table 6).These site based plans guide school districts in the strategic planning process. In our college’s Managerial Effectiveness/Strategic Planning course, we emphasize use of components from such plans. The course is dedicated to identification of a problem through engagment in a needs analysis and the subsequent creation of a means of remediation by way of a school improvement plan.  A critical indicator of an effective practicum is that the program requires real world application of knowledge gained in the classroom to identify and solve real problems contributing to the achievement gap. This affords an opportunity to tether theory to practice in administrator preparation programs.
Limitations
     Obtaining accurate, timely names and addresses of recent graduates was not possible. Inaccurate contact information limited the number of respondents and slowed down the time frame of conducting the survey. It took us 3 months to obtain 70 participants.
     Our sample was not a random sample. We used a small sample drawn from 1 aspect of a graduate principal training program at 1 public state college. Composition of students enrolled in the program varies annually.
     We did not consider gender and religion, nor did we consider the enrollment status of our students as we have licensure, degree and certificate programs in Educational Leadership.
     Timing in the academic year may have influenced the responses as students were queried early in their practicum experiences. What was going on in their workplace settings at the time the surveys were sent may have varied. Additionally, our college was preparing for a National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) review during the time of data collection.
     The selection of a particular electronic portfolio for student practicum documentation was prepared with NCATE accreditation review in mind. During the time current students were enrolled in the Program, the electronic portfolio template changed from one provider to another. Recent graduates demonstrated their knowledge of the practicum leadership standards with paper portfolios, making it cumbersome to review like documents.
     The interview with the Practicum Coordinator was not face to face. He was an Interim Coordinator and brand new to the position. As such, he did not have enough information to respond to the five open-ended questions. He was also coordinating the accelerated principal licensure program and was unavailable for a mutually convenient face to face interview.
     Limitations of time and logistics did not permit face to face interviews with the 70 respondents. One online interview may not be enough to ascertain how each of the respondents really felt about the quality of the practicum experience.
     Only 1 of us observed the 2 required practicum meetings. Although neither of us participated in the study itself, the sole observer was a recent Program graduate. This may have biased his perceptions.
Conclusions
     Although the lack of efficacy of college supervisors and the inability of principal candidates to perform authentic leadership tasks were identified as weaknesses of the practicum component of the Educational Leadership Program, this study informed us about the essential aspects of an effective on site field experience for aspiring principals. The role of the mentor principal is pivotal in allowing aspiring principals to affect change. Since students in our program are employed full time, data suggested that these students were willing to forsake a field placement wherein they could actually affect change to fulfill the practicum at the same place where they were employed, even if they could not perform authentic leadership tasks at that site. We speculate that students in other colleges/universities value the on site field experience itself as integral to their principal training, but that their field experience mirrors our findings in that the mentor principal and college supervisor are integral to gaining administrative experience.
Implications for the Principal Practicum Experience
     Some contradictions in the data about the effectiveness of the mentor principal point to the notion of offering mentor principals a training program in how to mentor aspiring principals. Included in this potential professional development training might be utilization of a school improvement plan to teach aspiring principals to utilize school data effectively. Perhaps such a professional development program could include prospective college supervisors. Currently, there are no specific criteria for becoming a college supervisor. A training program for both mentor principals and college supervisors might be helpful in devising a plan as to how to offer aspiring principals opportunity to affect change.
     Data from our study indicate current and recent program graduates had little time to discuss practicum experiences with their colleagues. Since students work full time, have families, and attend graduate classes, they have limited opportunity to reflect on practice, other than in their electronic portfolios. We recommend initiating a bi weekly seminar, either online, face to face, or a hybrid model for practicum students to dialogue about what is happening in their respective on site experience settings.
     Finally, the notion of paid principal practicum experiences may be a way to ensure not only that participants can work outside of their home school, but also so that enrollment might increase from those with great leadership potential who might not have otherwise considered the endeavor due to financial constraints.

References

Archer, J. (2005). Principal preparation. Education Week, 24 (32), 12-20.
Beck, L.G. (1994).  Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College  Press.
Bolman,  L. G. and Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing Organizations:  Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 3rd Edition. San
       Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Browne-Ferrigno, T.  (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation,
       purposeful engagement. Education Administration Quarterly, 39 (4), 468-503.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., and Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional
       development, and capacity building. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494.
Chenowith, T., Carr, C., and Ruhl, T. (2002, August). Best practice in educational leadership preparation programs. 
       Retrieved May 22, 2007 from
       http://www.ilprincipals.org/ipa/leadership/downloads/principalpreparation/EdLeaderForum_Best%20Practice.pdf
Daresh, J. C. (1997). Improving principal preparation: A review of common strategies. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (585), 3-8.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling Up their Sleeves: Superintendents and Principals Talk About
       What’s Needed to Fix Public Schools. NewYork:  Public Agenda. 
Fry, B., Bottoms, G., and O’Neill, K. (2005). The Principal Internship:  How can we get it right?
Gray, T. (2001). Principal internships. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 663.
Harris, S., Ballenger, J., and Leonard, J. (2004). Aspiring principal perceptions: are mentor principals modeling standards-based
       leadership? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(2), 155-172.
Hess, F. M. and Kelly, A.P. (2005). Learning to Lead:  What Gets Taught in Principal Preparation Programs. Retrieved June 6,
       2007, from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/papers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_PEPG05.02.pdf
Hess, F. M. and Kelly, A.P. (2007).  “Textbook Leadership:  An Analysis of Leading Books Used in Principal Preparation.”
       Retrieved June 6, 2007, from,
       http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/papers/Hess_Kelly-Textbook_Leadership_PEPGO5.03.pdf
Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational Administration:  Theory, Research, and Practice, 7th Edition.  New York: 
       McGraw Hill. 
Jackson, A.W. and Davis, G.A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century (A report of the
       Carnegie Corporation of New York). New York: Teachers College Press. 
Jackson, B. L. and Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership.  Educational
       Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 192-212.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., and Talbert, J. E. (2003, February).  Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and
       district leaders (district report). Seattle, WA:  Center forthe Study of Teaching and Policy. 
Lave, J.  (1991). Situated learning:  Legitimate peripheral participation.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.
Lander, A. (2000). The new look in principal preparation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (617), 2328.
Lashway, L. (2006, February 16). Transforming Principal Preparation. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from
       http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/principal.html
Levine, A. (2005). Educating School Leaders. (New York:  Teachers College, The Education Schools Project).
Olson, L. (2007). Study sheds light on qualities of best training for principals.  Education Week, 26(35), 1-16. 
Pascopella, A. (2005). Effective principal preparation. District Administration, 41(10), 12-14.
Petzko, V., Clark, D., Valentine, J., Hackman, D., Norn, J., and Lucas, S. (2002). Leaders and leadership in the middle
       schools.  NASSP Bulletin, 86 (631).
SREB (2006).  Schools Can't Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation Programs. 1-100.
Sweeney, J., Huth, L., and Engel, R. (1981). Principal internships -- A look at the facts. Education. 102 (2), 151-153.

Table 1
The Most Helpful Part of the Practicum Experience

Table 2
College Supervisor’s Impact on Student’s Current Leadership Capabilities

Table 3
Internship Site Selection at HomeSchool

Table 4
The Most Lacking Aspects of the Practicum

Table 5
The Opportunity Given to Interns to Lead Groups of Teachers in School Change or Instructional Practices

Table 6
Whether or Not Interns Used Their School Improvement Plan