In 2003, CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed asked California State University, Fresno President John D. Welty to convene the Presidents Task Force on Education leadership programs, comprised of seven campus presidents, to focus on the special issues and challenges surrounding the preparation of administrators for California’s schools. A 39-member work group was formed. These members included 17 administrators and faculty from CSU campuses and 22 K-12 leaders, including several who had recently graduated from CSU-based education leadership programs, and representatives from administrator professional organizations, state education agencies, and business and community organizations.

The outcome of the task force’s work, “The CSU Presidents Task Force on Education Leadership Programs,” was presented to the CSU Board of Trustees in July 2004 with the following recommendations:

1. Education leadership programs should focus on preparing graduates who will function as effective instructional leaders. The focus on K-12 student learning mandates that the primary role of the school principal shift from that of fiscal and operations manager to that of instructional leader. Preparation programs must train candidates to improve learning in their schools by altering teaching practices, and by concurrently changing polices that interfere with instructional improvements.

2. Education leadership programs should prepare graduates to distribute instructional leadership roles throughout their school. The visionary site leader creates an environment in which teachers and other school staff contribute their expertise and assume responsibility for initiating and managing specific instructional improvements.

3. Education leadership programs, including graduate degree programs, should prepare education leaders for all levels of service and in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of California. Education leadership programs in California provide initial and advanced certification for K-12 school site leaders. Professional development should also be available within districts. In addition, graduate degree programs (master’s and doctoral levels) are essential for those who would investigate how to create strong learning environments in particularly difficult schools or who are charged with implementing such reforms throughout a district.

4. The university systems in California should advocate forcefully for increased public support for instructional leadership roles by school leaders. The university systems should join with statewide governmental bodies, professional school administrator organizations, and other local organizations to advocate for understanding, development, and acceptance of school reforms that place instructional leadership at the center of the site administrator’s duties.

5. Education leadership programs should contain common core elements that contain the key skills for instructional leaders. Establishing a common core will likely result in the restructuring of the role and responsibilities of the school principal so that the job is attractive and can be done by talented, accomplished, but not “superhuman” candidates.

6. Education leadership programs should be designed to contain learning experiences that balance research, theory, and practice. Existing research strongly suggests that certain components help make programs effective. Programs need to be designed so that candidates encounter the essential content in ways that lead to real mastery, i.e., by creating appropriate mixes of theory, research, and practice.

7. Educational leadership programs should develop a systemic recruitment plan linked to the knowledge and skills needed for effective educational leaders. Schools and districts are operating in a new era of accountability for results, a focus on K-12 pupil learning, and renewed commitment to closing the achievement gap. Recruitment of future leaders must be tied to identification of those who are most likely to provide the instructional leadership needed to improve schools in these ways.

8. Education leadership programs should be adapted to meet local needs in leadership knowledge, skills, recruitment, and support. For programs to be effective, they must reflect the dynamic, context-specific nature of local schools and the developmental needs of emerging and career leaders who work there. As districts evolve over time, the educational leadership programs must also evolve.

9. Programs will draw on multiple partners from within and without the university to design, implement, and build support for the collaborative education leadership programs. In the universities, faculty from Colleges and Departments of Education will be the primary participants in education leadership programs. However, the programs should also draw upon the expertise of other departments within the university to create a rigorous, interdisciplinary curriculum. This curriculum would address the increased needs of instructional leaders to diagnose specific school problems (based on analyses of complex data), and to improve learning in multiculturally rich schools. The curriculum would be linked with field experiences, perhaps in internships, and enhanced by the input of K-12 school and district personnel.

10. Education leadership programs should be designed, taught, and supported by all members of the partnership. The range of education leadership program partners must collaborate on all aspects of program design, implementation, and assessment, including specific courses and experiences within them. This will help ensure the inclusion of content that contains an appropriate balance between the theoretical and practical.

11. Education leadership programs should assess, initially and over time, graduates’ satisfaction with the effectiveness of their programs. The collaborative instructional leadership programs need to be accountable to their students for the power and efficacy of their programs.

12. Education leadership programs should participate in regular statewide assessments of the effectiveness of graduates. Graduates of the programs need to be followed to determine whether they enter administrator positions, how long they stay in formal leadership roles, how effective their training was (as evaluated by their supervisors), and whether the programs as implemented have produced the leaders that schools and districts need.