However, the road ahead is bumpy for teacher evaluation. Because value-added ratings don't come out until after the school year is over—and because the majority of teachers don't teach subjects with annual standardized testing—the revamped observations have become a major piece of the reform effort.  

The UCEA Executive Committee is accepting nominations from UCEA Member Institutions for the 16th Annual Educational Leadership Award, in recognition of practicing school administrators who have made significant contributions to the improvement of administrator preparation.

Click here to download the Call for Nominees and Nomination Form.

The deadline is Mar 12, 2012.

Click here to view this webinar.

School leadership often has been overlooked as an education improvement strategy, despite the evidence that leadership influences student achievement.  In this webinar, panelists shared their research findings and examined district-level conditions that improve the effectiveness of school principals.  Panelists also discussed how to develop effective university-district preparation partnerships.

Click here for future webinars.

This coming week I scheduled a conference call with Steve Tozer at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Steve is a great resource for anyone wanting to know how to influence policy and legislation. He and his colleagues were able to craft legislation in Illinois that basically shuts down all diploma mills and requires all leadership programs to have critical elements of effective leadership preparation as found by scholars like Darling-Hammond and others. Steve and his colleagues used data to show legislators that the pipeline is full of certified prospective leaders, but what it lacks is high quality leaders. Like a roto-rooter, Steve and colleagues have provided a blueprint for cleaning the crap that lies within our field. Unless we are willing to get involved politically and advocate for high quality programs, we will always be susceptible to criticisms, fair or unfair like those leveled on the field from people like Art Levine and others. As someone mentioned last night, everyone has a choice to make. I hope you will make a choice to go above and beyond the call of duty and model for our students what real leadership is all about.

“I’m delighted that Jody has agreed to direct our work in school leadership going forward,” said Will Miller, President of The Wallace Foundation. “She has been doing an excellent job as interim director and ensured that we and our partners have not missed a beat in this important initiative. Her skills, experience and leadership will contribute greatly to the potential of our work to yield important lessons for district leaders, as well as state and federal policymakers, on how we can effectively develop and support principals in ways that strengthen student achievement.”

Spiro served as Senior Program Officer in Education since 2002.  In that capacity, she has contributed significantly to advancing the foundation’s “first generation” efforts in school leadership, notably; by forging strong partnerships between states and districts; through her work with the New York City Leadership Academy and the National School Administration Manager Innovation Projects; and through her leadership of the Leading Change Learning Community, Wallace’s most systematic effort to date to help grantees sustain programs and practices that improved school leadership.

“It has been an honor to be involved with Wallace’s education leadership work these past years and very exciting to lead the next generation initiative which grows from and furthers those efforts,” said Spiro.  “Together with our grantees we are all part of a vibrant learning community, and I look forward to the new lessons we will learn together.”

The Wallace Foundation is an independent, national foundation dedicated to supporting and sharing effective ideas and practices that expand learning and enrichment opportunities for children. 

The institute that I run at Auburn (www.auburn.edu/trumanpierceinstitute) has a three-fold mission to educate, conduct research, and take actions to improve the quality of teaching, leadership, and learning. I try to interpret this mission broadly and using the words of one of my former students, “think as though there is no box” when approaching our work. One current effort, our Second Annual Anti-Bullying Summit (see www.auburn.edu/antibullying for more information, our call for proposals, and free access videos of last year’s presentations), was initially created to educate multiple audiences about how and why to address instances of bullying in multiple settings. Bullying influences many students’ decisions to miss school or drop out. Therefore, addressing bullying becomes one way to have an impact on the achievement gap while addressing other social justice issues. Acts of oppression and aggression based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, or nationality, whether they are institutionalized policies and practices or individual acts, have the potential to alienate, repress, or otherwise marginalize the educational and employment opportunities that should be available to all students and citizens. Alabama’s Immigration Law is, in my mind, a classic example of institutionalized oppression that directly impacts student opportunity to learn (or even attend school). For me, educating others about bullying (individual, organizational, and systemic/political) is an important area for leaders to embrace and share in their schools and programs for many reasons, some of which are more obvious than others.

Recently, I have been preparing to serve on a panel that will engage in discussion related to the educational achievement gap, particularly as it exists in Alabama. This event will be held the evening of February 1st. The panel discussion, part of a new effort on the part of Auburn’s Vice President for Student Affairs, in collaboration with the Student Government, was created to raise student awareness about critical social issues and how students can become involved in helping to address these issues. The other panelists are: Alabama State Superintendent of Education, Dr. Tommy Bice; Dr. Marilyn Strutchens, a distinguished professor of math education; Lauren Hayes, the Teaching Advocacy Director at Tennessee Charter Schools; and Lauren Hayes, an Auburn graduate and Teach for America Core Member. We’ll have an hour to respond to initial questions and 30 minutes to answer questions from the general audience. It should be a fascinating event with lively discussion and I’m hoping that the comments made will challenge the assumptions of at least some who are in attendance.

While I commend our administrative and student leaders for his efforts to inform and engage our undergraduate student body, I remain cautious about expectations for the event. We may reach a few students, but I believe it is more likely that those in attendance will hear reinforcement for the messages they brought with them, rather than having their core beliefs challenged enough so that they are willing to take action. In many ways this event, while well intentioned, is symbolic rather than substantive. I’m also cautious that some of those involved will feel that they’ve done their part by attending the event and perhaps even participating in a follow up activity rather than realizing that a systemic, long-term commitment is needed to influence change that can result in closing (or dare we say it-eliminating) the achievement gap. Still, it is a start and I’m glad to be a member of the panel. For me, sharing compelling research-informed content, advocating for what we know is right and just, and helping to develop an engaged well-informed citizenry are other important purposes of education.

Shifting gears…As I read today’s issue of Inside Higher Education I was particularly concerned about one piece and the implications for our work if this policy change occurs. In President Obama’s State of the Union Address colleges were given a heads up that policy changes related to higher education may be in the wind. As stated in Inside Higher Education[i], “The White House has proposed expanding the program to $10 billion per year and revamping the formula for distributing both Perkins loans and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. Money would be directed to colleges that do well on three criteria: setting a “responsible tuition policy,” providing “good value” to students, and enrolling and graduating relatively large numbers of low-income students. Colleges that do not meet those standards could see their funding for campus-based programs cut.”

Also as stated today, Diane Ravitch recently criticized many trends in higher education policy and specifically, President Obama's new plan. “An increasing reliance on productivity and outcomes data will result in a generation of students who cannot learn or think for themselves,” she warned. "The more we attempt to quantify what cannot be quantified, the more we narrow the purposes of higher education, Ravitch said, calling on college presidents to stand up for academic freedom and resist the ‘accountability juggernaut’." [ii]

I think most of us would agree that being accountable is necessary, but how we define what counts as important in higher education and the ways we address measuring outcomes requires far more research and thinking. As Ravitch argued, trying to quantify intangible qualities and outcomes will limit the breadth and depth of our work. We don’t have the luxury of endless time for efforts to identify what counts as important—others are well-poised to do this for us. Rightn now, well-funded and politically connected organizations are changing the way leaders are prepared (a few of these include Academic Partnerships, Broad Foundation, and Laura Bush’s work).

Having responsible tuition policies and increasing educational opportunities for low-income and/or under-represented groups of students are important goals. Most of us would agree with these goals. But, I am concerned about the definition of providing “good value” to students that is being touted.  According to today’s Inside Higher Education, “The plan calls for linking federal aid not only to net price increases but to whether colleges provide “good value” to students -- a “quality education and training that prepares graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans.” [iii] I believe it is essential that we educate ourselves and others about these recommendations and then advocate for what we know to be right and just.

As stated in our 2012 UCEA conference theme, The Future is Ours: Leadership Matters! We need to be the leaders, researchers, and advocates we expect our students and program graduates to be. We operate from privileged positions and as such have a responsibility to not only speak our truths, but to engage others in efforts to influence policy and practice locally, state-wide, nationally, and internationally. We need to work in ways that are proactive, reflective, engaging and purposeful. I’m fearful that if we don’t educate ourselves and involve our students and others (and ourselves) in our engaged scholarship and practice—and do this soon--we may become irrelevant. I encourage you to share examples of the advocacy work you are doing and the influence it is having with others in UCEA. Responding to this post is one way to do that. I suspect that we are already doing far more than most would suspect—and it would be exciting to see the breadth and depth of efforts already underway.

[i] Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/30/obama-higher-education-plan-signals-policy-shift#ixzz1l3Czgf1r 
Inside Higher Ed 

[ii] Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/01/31/diane-ravitch-takes-obamas-higher-ed-plan#ixzz1l3A9PQzk Inside Higher Ed

[iii] Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/30/obama-higher-education-plan-signals-policy-shift#ixzz1l3QFEnJi Inside Higher Ed

Title: How School Districts Support Effective Leadership Practice

Date: Friday, February 3, 2012

Time: 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM EST

System Requirements: PC-based attendees, Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server; Macintosh®-based attendees, Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer

Space is Limited, so Register Today!

After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

My biggest concern is President Obama, like most politicians on both sides of the aisle do not understand higher education funding. For the past decade, public higher education institutions have suffered from dwindling financial support from their state legislatures. In some cases like Texas, they de-regulated tuition and allowed each institution to set their own tuition and fees with the approval of the Board of Regents. As the legislature de-regulated tuition and fees, they also drastically cut state support for higher education. As a result, all public institutions in TX and elsewhere like California have had to raise their tuition or cut programs and faculty to stay afloat. When institutions raised tuition, the same legislatures that cut higher education funding criticized severely the increases. Talk about hypocrites! I wish legislators were required to take the same hippocratic oath that M.D.s do, i.e., "do no harm." In any case, while educational leadership programs are a small subunit of the university, we have an obligation and responsibility to use our expertise and inform public policymakers, so that they may become enlightened. If we fail to take this challenge, we do it at the risk of our own peril.