1.5 Combining forces in the development of programs and services:  (Page 9/7)

Note: This MODULE has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational administration.

Since A Nation At Risk in the early 1980s, the general public along with governmental, educational, and thebusiness community have called for changes and improvement in educational systems at all levels. These calls for change have beendirected toward improvement in programs ranging from early childhood education to university programs. In recent years, publicand private agencies have been developing non-traditional public education formats such as charter schools, school/businessinternships and partnerships, contract schools, K-14 partnerships, school-to-work programs, or attempting to expand on alreadyexisting private educational opportunities through vouchers and tax exemptions. Some of these calls for change and restructuring havebeen directed at university programs in both the areas of teacher preparation and the training of school administrators (Milstein andAssociates, 1993; Murphy&Hallinger, 1995; Newman&Wehlage, 1995) and have been incorporated into the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, NoChild Left Behind (U.S. Government, 2001).

Administrative theory as traditionally taught in educational administration preparation programs is rooted inorganizational management and leadership theory and in the social sciences. Theoretical frameworks that can be found in textsutilized in educational administration preparation programs include: systems theory, human resource management, organizationalchange and development, total quality management, power and politics, decision-making, general management and leadershipskills, visioning, teaming, and organizational culture, to name only a few. These theoretical constructs form a foundation forunderstanding organizational administration in general and educational administration in particular. Examples of this can befound in books and articles by authors such as Bolman&Deal (2004),Cunningham&Cordeiro (2000), Hersey&Blanchard (1984), Hoy&Miskel (1996), Kimbrough&Nunnery (1988), Lunenburg&Ornstein (2000), Morgan (1986), Sergiovanni (1995), Seyfarth (1999), Silver, (1983), and Yukl (2002). These citedauthors only touch the tip of the iceberg in published works on educational administration. Additionally, professors in educationalleadership and administration programs regularly incorporate the works of such well known organizational and social sciencetheorists as Argyris, Barnard, Bass, Bennis, Demming, Drucker, Etzioni, Fayol, Fiedler, Galbraith, House, Kanter, Katz&Kahn, Kotter, Kouzes&Posner, Likert, Maslow, McGregor, Mintzberg, Peters, Pfeffer, Schein, Senge, Stogdill, Taylor, Vaill, Vroom, andWebber among others.