Champion or Chump - Using a Book-Length Case Study to Evaluate a Mythical Principal

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by ahduag

Study examines how 130 participants in the University of Northern Iowa principalship program completed a standards-based evaluation after reading a book-length case study featuring a mythical principal. Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL), aligned with ISLLC and ELCC, show broad agreement on performance across vision, instruction, management, collaboration, and politics, while ethics produce a clear split. Findings inform responses to literature, emphasizing more authentic, rigorous ethics-focused experiences for preservice principals.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Review of the Literature

Principal Preparation Critiques and Practitioner Perspectives

Improvement Efforts and Effective Practices

Case Studies and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Background of the Study

Champion or Chump: Using a Book-Length Case Study to Evaluate a Mythical Principal Nicholas J. Pace Timothy W. Gilson University of Northern Iowa This study examined how 130 participants enrolled in the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) principalship program completed a standards-based evaluation after reading a book-length case study of a mythical principal. Application of the Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL), which mirror the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and Educational Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) standards reveal widespread agreement on the principal’s performance related to vision, instruction, management, collaboration and politics. However, participants were distinctly split as to the mythical principal’s ethics. The authors discuss potential responses to literature that identify many programs as weak and inadequate by providing more authentic and rigorous experiences around ethics and other practical issues for preservice principals. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An alarming number of scholars have concluded that many educational leadership programs fail to adequately prepare principals for reality (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003) . Levine (2005) called programs at many prestigious institutions “inadequate to appalling”(p. 23) . The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) urged “departments of educational leadership to awaken from their complacency, reject the status quo and respond to appeals and criticisms from the field by identifying new content that addresses what principals need to know in order to do their jobs…”(2006, p. 11). Murphy (2006) concurred, noting that criticism of schools of education is most well founded when aimed at the preparation of administrators. Increasingly complex expectations for principals led Hess and Kelley (2007), to conclude that “principal preparation programs that pay little attention to data, productivity, accountability, or working with parents may leave their graduates unprepared for new responsibilities” (p. 14) . Such criticism is not limited to scholars of educational leadership. Research suggests that many practitioners agree. Indeed, the authors’own experiences as practitioners support these conclusions. Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, and Cohen (2007) cited a Public Agenda survey that showed 80% of superintendents and 69% of principals felt university educational leadership programs were out of touch with reality in today’s schools. Hess and NCPEA Education Leadership Review, Vol. 14, No. 1– March 2013 ISSN: 1532-0723 © 2013 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration Kelley (2005) noted a Public Agenda survey indicating that a whopping 96% of principals said their colleagues were more helpful than graduate school in helping them prepare for the job. If Whitaker (2012) is correct in asserting that the “principal is the decisive element in the school”(p. 22), we should be aghast. Despite this harsh criticism, there is reason to believe that principalship preparation programs are heeding the call for improvement. For example, Orr (2006) identified encouraging changes in many programs, including an increased emphasis on constant reflection. In a well-received book addressing principal preparation, Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, and Orr (2010) identified promising model practices. Key among these was a relevant, well-developed and thoughtful curriculum aligned with state and professional standards. These programs embraced “active, problem-based learning that integrates theory and practice and stimulates reflection”(p. 50) . They emphasized “action research; field-based projects; journal writing; and portfolios of evidence about practice that require feedback and assessment from peers, faculty, and the candidates themselves”(p. 50) . Darling-Hammond’s team (2010) identified cohorts with mentoring and advising from experienced practitioners as essential. They also stressed th

FAQs

How was the standards-based evaluation conducted in the study?

The 130 participants enrolled in the University of Northern Iowa principalship program evaluated a mythical principal after reading a book-length case study using the Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL).

Which areas of the mythical principal’s performance showed broad agreement?

Participants largely agreed on vision, instruction, management, collaboration, and politics, as reflected by alignment with ISLLC and ELCC standards.

Why did participants differ in their judgments?

Participants were distinctly split regarding the mythical principal’s ethics, indicating that ethics was a more contested dimension in the evaluation.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by ahduag