In 2006 educational administration struggles to find a balance between an academic program of study and apractitioner oriented program of study. “For survival in the university, academic legitimacy is needed by the program,especially its faculty” (p. 23). Yet, the demands of the future and the practitioner world pressure educational administratorpreparation programs to adapt and change as never before.
The die was cast when educational administration became a university-based program of study withinthe university culture of scholarship. The cleavage between practitioner and scholar began when educational administrationbecame a university-based program of study in the early 1900’s and persists to the present day. The University Council for EducationalAdministration (UCEA) became the home organization for professors who saw their roles as more academic while the National Council ofProfessors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) became the home for those professors who saw their roles as more practitioneroriented. In fact, educational administration encompasses both practice and scholarship and every professor of educationaladministration knows and understands this aspect of the business. Yet, there continues to be a drift to one program preparationviewpoint or to another. There is no practical reason for perpetuating this divide within the university-based field ofeducational administration.
Levine is the most recent critic of educational administration. In his study Educating School Leaders(2005), the field of educational administration is excoriated for its weak curriculum and lack of rigor. “This study found theoverall quality of educational administration programs in the United States to be poor: The majority of programs range frominadequate to appalling, even at some of the countries leading universities” (p. 32). He further makes the point that states havesought alternative routes for administrator training:
Because the programs have failed to establish quality controls, states have developed alternative routes forpeople to enter school leadership careers, and major school systems have embraced them. Because traditional educational administrationprograms have not prepared school leaders for their jobs, new providers have sprung up to compete with them. Because they havefailed to embrace practice and practitioners, their standing has fallen, and school systems have created their own leadershipprograms. All of these changes are likely to accelerate (p. 68)
The field of educational administration has trained many administrators over the past one hundred years butfailed to gain credibility for what it does and how it does it. In understanding the criticism of educational administration and thepreparation of school leaders, it must be understood that the field itself is under attack because of weak preparation in a number ofareas. It is not any one component that twists in the wind for reform; it is all of the parts of educational administrationprogramming that remain entrenched in the university-based preparation program model. The criticism of educationaladministration over a 50 year period is laden with admonishments to improve the quality of preparation in the areas of studentadmission, faculty expertise and knowledge, appropriate curriculum, university and college financial support of the program, studentand faculty research, assessment of progress through the program, kinds of degrees and the purpose of the program and the orientationtoward training a practitioner or a researcher (see for example Levine, 2005, Murphy, 1992, Achilles, 2005, Farquhar&Piele 1972).