First, university-based preparation did not fully address meaningful ongoing professional growth over the course of a career even when school leaders pursued post-masters level graduate work. University-based educational administration programs, in the United States, were primarily designed for pre-service introduction and academic overview of knowledge, skills, competencies, and dispositions needed by those who aspired to move into, or advance to, a new administrative role in K-12 education. As such, university preparation programs were organized around core elements of general school administration at the building or district level but not tailored to given contexts, not agile at addressing current issues, and not designed to follow, assist, and continue to develop school leaders in the course of actual professional practice in given school leadership roles.
Second, states continued to rely on universities as the primary provider and venue for credentialing school leaders; yet, they were also concerned about standards of practice, quality of performance, improving competency, increasing effectiveness, and stimulating continuous growth and adaptation among school leaders once they entered the field. These concerns rose directly out of the needs of school districts facing unprecedented challenges and high-stakes accountability. University-based courseware and programs were well suited for preparing individuals (especially trained educators) for specific levels and functions of school administration, but they were not designed to address the myriad ways in which school administrators with varied backgrounds and career paths must adapt to and address increasingly unstable conditions in the specific contexts and circumstances they administer. State level initiatives targeted at improving school leader effectiveness in the field were beginning to look beyond the universities for school administrator continuing education.
The traditional university graduate programs in educational administration assume a grounding in teaching and learning and do not adapt easily to alternatively degreed and/or experienced individuals who were making a career shift into school administration. These and other factors, such as high turn-over in administrator positions and new research findings linking principal and superintendent leadership to student achievement (Marzano, Waters,&Mc Nulty, 2005; Reeves, 2006; Marzano&Waters, 2007), increasingly demanded more pre- and post-credentialing options for training, updating, coaching, and mentoring school leaders. The expansion of public school alternatives (charters) and a range of pressures for change, adaptation, and reform in the public school system began to stimulate a rethinking of school leader recruitment, training, development, and credentialing at the local, state, and federal policy levels (e.g. NCLB).
The field of educational administration recognizes the importance of ongoing career training post-master’s, post-specialist, and post-doctoral in considering the education of our nation’s school leaders. Local boards and legislators look both within and beyond the ranks of traditionally prepared educators and educational leaders for the leadership needed to reform schools with poor student achievement track records. New technologies and new research are reshaping the practice of school leadership, and state credentialing systems are beginning to respond with both higher standards for initial certification and additional requirements beyond initial certification based on evidence of continued learning and, in some cases, actual performance in the job.