Preparing School Leaders to Work with and in Community.

IntroductionWell-prepared leaders must have the content knowledge, skills, and dispositions to engage community members and stakeholders to address educational issues and improve outcomes for all students (Auerbach, 2009; Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008). Yet, the academy and community continue to debate the most effective ways to accomplish advanced school leadership preparation in general (Crow, 2006; Levine, 2005; Murphy, 2007; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006), and family and community engagement in particular (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Guajardo, Guajardo, Janson, & Militello, 2015). Leadership preparation programs' efforts to prepare leaders for community engagement continue to be described as "haphazard," with deans and department chairs acknowledging inadequate coursework and ill-prepared graduates (Epstein, 2013). Few programs include dedicated courses on how to work successfully with families and communities, and in one large scale study, less than 1% of coursework overall included instruction on parent relations (Hess & Kelly, 2007). In addition, field practice experiences may fail to provide candidates with opportunities to develop strong skills to work effectively with families and the community (Miller, Lines, Sullivan, & Hermanutz, 2013). At the doctoral level, traditional preparation programs effectively prepare leaders as scholars (i.e., reading, synthesizing, analyzing, performing research); however, such programs may not prepare candidates effectively as practitioners capable of applying research to practice in real world settings with real world problems (Hochbein & Perry, 2013). Bridging the gap between the two and forming scholarly practitioners is one of the central aims of professional education doctoral programs (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006). In addition, given shifting demographics in schools (Miller & Martin, 2014) and renewed emphasis upon family and community engagement at the national level (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013; Superville, 2014), addressing the theory/practice gap in this area remains relevant.In this study, we employ Q methodology (see full description below) because it is a research methodology that was designed for and thus uniquely suited to measuring subjects' point of view or "subjectivity" (Brown, 1996; Stephenson, 1953, 1980). Often described as a hybrid method that combines quantitative and qualitative aspects, Q methodology attempts to understand subjective judgements objectively and permits us to analyze individual data and determine shared views of diverse stakeholders.ContextThe Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) consists of over 80 institutions nationwide with a mission of strengthening the education doctorate. The work of the consortium is guided by six interrelated working principles. The professional doctorate in education:1. Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.2. Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.3. Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.4. Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.5. Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.6. Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice. (CPED, 2014, para. 12)At the June 2014 CPED convening, networked learning communities were formed around each principle to build shared understanding and engage in a continuous cycle of inquiry into how principles were operationalized in practice and how they might be changed or improved (Bryk, 2009). …