Hamel and Prahalad (1994) described the greatest challenge to every organization as having the ability toidentify and transcend the boundaries of current knowledge. As they say, “The well-worn aphorism—what you do not know can hurt you—isentirely apropos” (p. 56). What professors of educational administration know is that the past informs but does not clarifyhow knowledge can improve the present or the future. The development and transformation of programs in educationaladministration begins with an honest appraisal of a theory that is grounded in practice and is informed by professional and scholarlyknowledge.
A Theory of Program Preparation
Most educational administration preparation programs in the United States have a similar history. Today’sprograms are more alike than different, regardless of university Carnegie classification, type of student, or variations incurriculum. The approximately 500 programs in the United States generally have a similar goal: provide quality pre-serviceleadership preparation.
While some disagreement exists relative to details, the elements of quality program preparation are fairlystraightforward. Identifying these elements and explaining how they can be improved has not provided sufficient motivation touniversally elevate preparation programs to a level of performance that satisfies accrediting bodies, deans, professionalassociations, and the external public. As professors of educational administration we are in a position to address the concerns.
First, there is no accepted theory of program preparation in educational administration. It does exist,informally, in the debate between providing a curriculum that emphasizes training as a practitioner or a curriculum affording theeducation background of a scholar. As noted, the NCPEA and the UCEA are symbolic of this fragmentation. NCPEA historically has hadstrong representation from practitioner oriented professors (and institutions): an orientation that still exists, but with greaterand growing attention to scholarship. One of the reasons for the founding of UCEA in the 1950’s was to elevate the scholarly andacademic profile of the profession and the practitioner. Neither approach has elevated the academic standing of the profession.While variations in curriculum should be encouraged, an archetypical milieu should be recognized that encompasses allquality programs and focuses on quality preparation that blends practical, professional, and academic knowledge.
Conceptually, one can suggest that three general domains shape educational administration preparation. Theseare illustrated in Figure 1 with associated constructs: practical, professional, and academic knowledge.
Practical knowledge is the general knowledge that one brings to educational leadership through a lifetime oflearning, experience in another professional setting, general training, or general common sense ability. Skills that one might beable to transfer from one setting to another might include, for example, consensus and teambuilding ability, management ofpersonnel, collective negotiation skills, or financial acumen. A person may have skill in developing and maintaining relationships,or understand aspects of educational leadership in the area of law, finance, or community issues because of interest or professionaltraining. Whatever common practical knowledge one brings to the job of educational leader can be found in the training of manyprofessions. This is the kind of knowledge that school boards might find attractive in a leader from another professional setting. Onemight think that leadership is leadership and that those individuals who can transfer these skills fromone setting to another will find success in educational administration. It is thereason school boards look to retired military leaders as superintendents. The belief is that many leadership skills can betransferred to the educational setting.