Search results

The purpose of this study was to examine the architecture of internship coaching models from five innovative principal preparation programs in the Southeastern region of the USA. The researchers used coaching architecture in this context to include the assignment of coaches to interns, dosages, and enactment of evaluation and confidentiality.

The researchers used a qualitative, collective case study research design that included semi-structured interviews of program directors and coaches from each of five programs, totaling 19 interviews that lasted from 30 min to an hour and 15 min each.

Commonalities among architectures of principal intern coaching designs included coaching assignment by geography, frequency and format of coaching sessions and length of the internship. All five programs recommend continuing coaching into initial years of administration. Points of distinction pertained to the utilization of external versus internal coaches, confidentiality and evaluation by coaches.

This study may inform coaching models for principal preparation programs within similar contexts. Because all five programs are grant-funded within one US state, generalizability and transferability cannot be assumed.

The authors provide design considerations for coaching programs, as well as policy considerations and directions for future research.

While coaching is increasingly used in leadership preparation programs, there is a paucity of research regarding the nature of coaching models, especially in terms of their architecture. The researchers examine, compare, and contrast coaching model architecture, raising important considerations for coaching designs.

The purpose of this study is to provide an empirical measure of how principals enact prescribed leadership standards into practice. The aim of the study was to ascertain how current school principals perceive the practice of a specific set of leadership standards.

A total of 61 practicing school principals in North Carolina were asked to rate (in a forced distribution) how they currently enact the North Carolina Standards for School Executives (their professional standards for certification and evaluation). Using Q‐methodology, factor analysis generated three model sorts. These factors are examined with the sorting data along with data from a post sort questionnaire.

The three factors that emerged in this study highlight that there is no one way leadership practices are lived in schools. Specifically, this study provided three distinct categories of how school principals practice leadership. The three factors that accounted for 38 percent of the variance in this study. The factors were named collaboration focus, policy focus, and vision focus. Each provides illustrative descriptions of what fosters and inhibits practices within each factor.

The findings have clear and present implications for how, why, and to what extent current school principals enact professional standards in the face of contextual factors that may complicate or even negate the efficacy of standardized practice. Such analysis holds promise that practices can be mediated in a meaningful manner.

This study adds value to the field by virtue of examining the dissonance between standards and practice. This study's methodology that seeks to operationalize subjectivity is original in the field of principal leadership.