Fear and The Preparation of School Leaders

Educational Policy
Volume 22 Number 1
January 2008 106-129
© 2008 Corwin Press
Fear and the Preparation 10.1177/0895904807311299
http://epx.sagepub.com
of School Leaders hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
The Role of Ambiguity, Anxiety,

and Power in Meaning Making
Michelle D. Young
Curtis Brewer
University of Texas at Austin
An uncertainty has developed around the “core technology” of preparing

educational leaders, making the general public question whether, in particular,
university professors know what they are doing. This sense of ambiguity can
also be found within the professoriate, where questioning of the knowledge
base, standards, pedagogy, and university expectations have become a new
norm, promoting reflexivity, uncertainty, and fear. Such uncertainty is neither
healthy nor unhealthy in and of itself; the outcome depends in large degree
on how it is fostered. In this article, we examine two contemporary reports that
critique educational leadership preparation, viewing their critiques and recom-
mendations as exercises of power within the context of late modernity. Using
Nyberg’s (1981) work on modes of power, Fraser’s (1989) work on problem
definition and contemporary work on the politics of fear (e.g., Glassner,
1999; Gonzalez & Delgado, 2006), we analyze the content of the reports and
their impact.
Keywords: leadership preparation; late modernity; educational context;

social construction of meaning; power
I t is critical that schools have leaders who are prepared to do everything

necessary to improve learning and teaching in their schools and school
districts. Currently, the responsibility for leadership preparation falls squarely
on the shoulders of higher education. The graduate field of leadership prepa-
ration is the primary means of preparing principals and superintendents for
school and district leadership positions nationwide, with approximately 450
to 500 university programs offering leadership preparation through master’s
(472 institutions), specialist (162 institutions), and doctoral (199 institu-
tions) degrees (Baker, Orr, & Young, 2007). Many critics are displeased,
however, with what has been referred to as higher education’s “monopoly”
in leadership preparation.
106
Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Young, Brewer / Fear and the Preparation of School Leaders 107
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2005), a conventional

leadership preparation program lacks vision, purpose, and coherence. In their
account, students self-select rather than program enrollment being based on
recruitment and selection processes, and students are evaluated on academic
qualifications without consideration of leadership experiences and potential.
Furthermore, the USDOE characterized students as progressing through a
series of discrete courses, without connection to actual practice or attention
to the particular needs of local schools. By implication, such programs
deliver decontextualized academic training to aspiring school administra-
tors, leaving quality and effectiveness judgments to the districts that hire
them (Orr, 2006).
Holding similar views of preparation, other critics have focused on the
pace and caliber of change in higher education, arguing that graduate schools
of education lack the capacity and rewards structure necessary to foster any-
thing other than superficial changes to existing practices. For example, Dave
Spence, the president of the Southern Regional Educational Board (2006),
asserted that although universities report program change, they really are in
“no particular hurry to redesign their programs to ensure that aspiring princi-
pals are thoroughly prepared for their role in improving curriculum, instruc-
tion and student achievement” (p. 5). Hess and Kelly (2005) similarly
questioned whether change forces for graduate schools have led to program
reform or just “a tiny wavelet nudging ashore a variety of new practices
while leaving institutions and networks largely untouched?” (p. 155). Other
critiques, like Levine’s (2005), have focused more on the spurious use of
leadership programs as “cash cows,” arguing that universities diminish the
quality of their leadership preparation programs by relying on them as a major
revenue source and forcing them to reduce program costs by raising enroll-
ments, lowering admission standards, and overusing adjunct faculty.
Although expressing concerns about educational leadership preparation
is not a recent phenomenon, several of the more recent critiques have
received unrivaled attention. Moreover, there appears to be a higher level of
apprehension and anxiety both within and external to the field about the
quality of leadership preparation and practice than ever before. In this article,
we explore the connection between recent critiques of educational leadership
preparation and this heightened sense of anxiety. Specifically, we examine
two contemporary reports that critique educational leadership preparation,
viewing their critiques and recommendations as exercises of power within
the context of late modernity. Using Nyberg’s (1981) work on modes of
power, Fraser’s (1989) work on problem definition, and contemporary work
on the politics of fear (e.g., Glassner, 1999; Gonzalez & Delgado, 2006), we

108 Educational Policy
analyze the content of the reports and their impact. Although each report
communicates the need for change in many programs and expresses a desire
that higher education programs will provide leadership for needed changes,
their similarities stop there. The two reports emerge from contrasting philoso-
phies, use different data and examples, build different arguments, and leave
their readers with strikingly diverse impressions of leadership preparation.
In the end, the two reports have had poignantly different impacts on the field
and the level of anxiety or fear raised with regard to university-based leader-
ship preparation.
Modernity and the Politics of Fear
As noted by Ginsberg and Lyche (this issue), fear, insecurity, and concern
are seen more and more frequently in the discourse surrounding preparation
issues, whether the focus is on the preparation of teachers, educational
leaders, or the “next generation.” With regard to educational leadership
preparation, fear can be detected at both the individual and societal levels.
Put simply, an uncertainty has developed around the “core technology” of
preparing educational leaders, making the general public question whether,
in particular, university professors know what they are doing. This sense of
ambiguity can also be found within the professoriate, in which questioning
of the knowledge base, standards, pedagogy, and university expectations
have become a new norm, promoting reflexivity, uncertainty, and fear. Such
uncertainty is neither healthy nor unhealthy in and of itself; the outcome
depends in large degree on how it is fostered. To better understand the way
that fear and uncertainty can operate as a constructive or destructive force,
we have looked to classical and contemporary scholarship, particularly
arguments of the impact of modernity1 on the human condition. Although
Glassner (1999) did an excellent job of unveiling the culture of fear that
plagues American culture as well as revealing some of the vendors of our fears
and their marketing methods, he spent little time explaining the origins of
this cultural characteristic. In the following paragraphs, we offer a slightly
fuller explanation of the origins of our culture of fear within the conditions
of modernity.
Modernity and Fear
Early connections between notions of modernity and fear can be found

in the work of Émile Durkheim (1897/1951) and Karl Marx (1844/1988)

For example, Durkheim’s critique of the modern world hinged on the

concept of anomie, a concept that references instability in society caused by
the erosion or abandonment of the society’s moral and social norms. People
within societies in which anomie is widespread are overcome by insecurity,
alienation, and a sense of meaninglessness. According to Durkheim, the
development of widespread anomie in western societies was the result of
the shift from agrarian to industrial societies. With this shift came an inter-
ruption in traditional economic, moral, and religious norms. Scholars like
Passas and Agnew (1997) have built on Durkheim’s work, arguing that gener-
ations of Americans experienced anomie due to the slow unfolding of coloniza-
tion from the East to the western frontier as well as the slow disassembly of
the slave economy of the South.
Although often contrasted with Durkheim’s (1897/1951) concept of
anomie, Marx’s (1844/1988) idea of alienation also offers another perspective
on the notion of fear in modern society. According to Marx, the modern era
was defined by the alienation of the self due to capitalist modes of production.
Marx argued that modern capitalist systems divided most individuals from the
direct production and sale of goods, leading to alienation and dehumanization.
The resulting self-estrangement, according to Marx, throughout time fosters
human practices in which people are treated more and more as strangers.
In The Consequences of Modernity, Anthony Giddens (1991), like Marx
and Durkheim, argued that the growth of capitalism and industrialization
differentiated modern society from premodern society. Capitalism, in his
work, is conceptualized as a productive power that held the potential to end
scarcity while also bringing about a more fractured and insecure existence
to much of human life. Modernity, for example, introduced surveillance sys-
tems (e.g., the panopticon structures used in prisons, USB codes on merchan-
dise, surveillance cameras, and medical records) that, although allowing
urban centers to grow more safely and supporting the ability to track, iso-
late, and treat infectious disease, also made the exercise of power a contin-
ual faceless operation (Foucault, 1977). In addition, although modernity’s
concentration of military power generated a previously unimaginable stability,
it also fostered the capacity to destroy all human life on earth. Finally, the
research and discoveries of the modern period have increased efficiency and
improved the lives of countless people, but research and new discoveries
have also raised awareness of the instability of knowledge and the mixed
consequences of some technologies, and ushered in a pace of change that is
unnerving and destabilizing for many. Indeed, the constant questioning asso-
ciated with research and development raises doubt about what and how we
know. Whereas in the past, tradition, local norms, and religion offered a sense
of ontological security that belayed our fears, in today’s world all of these

aspects of life are susceptible to change and deconstruction. Reason and

science have been used to continually reshape our world and practical life with
greater certitude while at the same time they have been used to demonstrate
that nothing is certain
Although, Durkheim, Marx, and Giddens did not speak specifically to
the conditions within the United States that nurture a culture of fear, taken
together, their work does suggest that the emotion of fear is woven into the
fabric of modern (i.e., western, late 20th- and early 21st-century) cultures
like the United States in ways that are markedly different from those in past
cultures. Their work suggests that modern culture promotes fear at three
levels: the individual, the societal, and the existential levels.
At the individual level, modern modes of production separate who one is
from what one does, by alienating people from the goods and services that
are produced by their labor. Simultaneously, these individuals are expected to
loyally embrace an impersonal capitalist culture that is loyal only to profits
and to adopt work ethics and learning styles characterized by dynamic
change and in some cases insecurity in an effort to achieve improvements and
greater efficiency. The modern world asks a lot of individuals, including the
separation of personal selves from professional selves, increased personal
risk, and loyalty to a fickle market (rather than to traditions and families).
On a societal level, a culture of dynamic change and innovation has infil-
trated modern culture, generated from increased reliance on science and an ero-
sion of widespread moral and social belief systems. Although supporting social
and moral institutions still exist, questioning and relativism have resulted in a
fractionalization of these institutions (e.g., the explosion of nondenominational
churches) and a questioning within traditional institutions of their foundational
beliefs and practices (e.g., accepting gay marriage or women religious leaders).
The increased choice and alternatives in lifestyles, dress, religion, and social
interaction have encouraged a greater degree of anomie. Societal norms have
become more fluid, offering individuals less comfort or certainty.
Finally, on the existential level we find a complementary theme of uncer-
tainty and risk. The hyperreflexivity of the modern age has left little foun-
dational supports or ontological security for either directing our future path
or providing assurance that the next moment or next day will not end in
absolute destruction.
Fear, Meaning, and Power
If, as we have delineated above, the condition of modernity fosters

a feeling of uncertainty and risk and a constant search for meaning and

certitude, then the ability to create meaning and provide certitude can sup-
ply the meaning maker with a great deal of power. According to Glassner
(1999), contemporary American culture is awash with interest groups trying
to shape meaning and define problems. Moreover, through an analysis of a
number of high-profile issues in the United States, he found that certain
interests have tapped into and manipulated feelings of uncertainty and the
need for meaning. For example, he found that false and overblown fears
have been created in the public mind on topics ranging from teenage preg-
nancy and delinquency to road rage, effectively diverting attention away
from more substantive issues like ensuring that our nation’s children have
access to free and high-quality health care. Perhaps even more disquieting,
he discovered that interest groups not only use discourse and stories to
divert attention but also to make some topics, questions, and critiques taboo
(e.g., linking opposition to the war to not supporting the troops).
Although Glassner (1999) clearly implicated the media as playing a key
role in the creation of a culture of fear through their reporting, he noted that
there are other forces at work, pointing to the “immense power and money
[that awaits] those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with
symbolic substitutes” (p. xxvii). The key strategy used to tap into insecurities,
shift the concerns and attention of the general public, and both stabilize and
destabilize “the known” is the manipulation of information and meaning.
Bringing Glassner’s work together with the scholarship we have cited on
modernity and fear, we gain a better understanding of both the quality of fear
afflicting modern societies like the United States as well as the conditions
that foster this contemporary variety of fear. We find that the desire
for certainty, meaning, truth, and belonging lays open an opportunity not
only to manipulate such desires but also to make meaning, define problems,
and draw boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable questions, ideas,
and practices.
Nyberg’s (1981) work on power provides a useful framework for exami-
ning the ways in which power is wielded through meaning making. Of his
concepts—force, fiction, finance, and fealty—fiction or storytelling is the
most relevant to our discussion. When one creates a fiction or tells a story,
one is creating a sense of meaning or a structure for interpreting events.
Thus, the central task in storytelling is eliciting from others belief and/or
acceptance. This is best done by telling stories that “appeal somehow to the
core of meanings that support and transform beliefs” (Nyberg, p. 72). One
who is “good at using words to turn ideas and images in the minds of
listeners and readers—a storyteller—is a person of great potential power”
(Nyberg, p. 71).

Fraser (1989) took the focus on storytelling as a form of power a bit further.
She applied a model of social discourse from literary studies to her analyses
of the “politics of interpretation” in rival stories about needs. Like Nyberg
(1981), she shifted attention away from problems or identified needs to the
stories that are told (i.e., discourses) about the needs and problems, and
then interrogated them. In her approach, she highlighted three interrelated
issues of power embedded within such stories. First, she pointed out the
importance of understanding how a need came to be identified as a need.
Second, she highlighted the importance of understanding who is telling the
story and from what perspective, because those who establish the authori-
tative definition or interpretation of a problem are accessing a major source
of power. Here, she also drew attention to the fact that participative mech-
anisms typically disadvantage subordinate or oppositional groups. Finally,
she focused attention on the struggle to define strategies for addressing the
identified problems. Thus, from her perspective, stories that define problems
and needs appear within
[s]ites of struggle where groups with unequal discursive (and nondiscursive)

resources compete to establish as hegemonic their respective interpretations
of legitimate social needs. Dominant groups articulate need interpretations
intended to exclude, defuse, and/or co-opt counterinterpretations. Subordinate
or oppositional groups, on the other hand, articulate need interpretations
intended to challenge, displace, and/or modify dominant ones. In neither case
are the interpretations simply “representations.” In both cases, rather, they are
acts and interventions. (Fraser, p. 166)
The dynamics of late modernity trade on uncertainty, encouraging anxi-

ety, fear, and the inevitable search for meaning. Thus, the ability of a group
or individual to create meaning and provide certitude vis-à-vis an issue or
problem and then to determine what should be done to remedy the problem
places the meaning maker in a key position of power.
Fear and Making Meaning in Educational

Leadership Preparation
Below, we examine two contemporary reports that critique educational

leadership preparation, viewing their critiques and recommendations as
exercises of power within the context of late modernity. Using Nyberg’s
(1981) work on power and Frazer’s (1989) work on problem definition, we
explore the content of the reports, looking carefully at the stories that are

told through the reports about university leadership preparation and the
impact of those stories, particularly with regard to the constructions of reali-
ties of leadership preparation. Although each report brings its story to the
same conclusion (i.e., there is the need for change in many programs) and
expresses a hope that higher education programs will provide leadership for
needed changes, their similarities stop there. The two reports emerge from
contrasting philosophies, use different data and examples, build different
arguments, and leave their readers with strikingly diverse impressions of
leadership preparation. In the end, the two reports have had poignantly differ-
ent impacts on the field and the level of anxiety or fear raised with regard
to university-based leadership preparation. These differences without question
make our comparison less than perfect; however, the contrast is nevertheless
powerfully instructive.
Report One/Story One
During the week of March 15, 2005, newspapers across the country covered
the release of “Educating School Leaders,” a report from the Education
Schools Project authored by Arthur Levine, the president of Teachers College
at Columbia University at the time. The report, which summarized the results
of a 4-year study of leadership preparation, offered a scathing critique of
university-based preparation of educational leaders, arguing that such programs
were not up to the task. The report focused its critique on six issues: curricu-
lum, admission and graduation standards, faculty quality, clinical instruction,
the graduate degrees offered, and faculty research. Each of the critiques is
summarized below.
An irrelevant curriculum: First, according to the report, the typical program

offers a course of study that includes a disjointed group of classes—such
as Foundations of Education, Educational Psychology, and Research
Methods—taught outside of the educational administration department
with little relevance to the job of school leader.
Low admission and graduation standards: Second, the report noted that the
students enrolled in leadership programs tend to have the lowest Graduate
Record Examination (GRE) scores in academe and tend to be viewed as
unmotivated and low performing. Moreover, it is argued that as a group,
educational leadership students appear to be more interested in earning
credits (and obtaining the salary increases that follow) than in pursuing
rigorous academic studies.
Weak faculty: The third criticism claimed that graduate programs in educational
administration are populated by far too many full-time faculty members

who have had little or no recent experience with the practice of school
administration and overuse adjunct professors, who depend heavily on
anecdotes and lack expertise in the academic content they are supposed
to teach.
Inadequate clinical instruction: Fourth, the report argues that meaningful
clinical instruction is rare in leadership preparation, noting that intern-
ships tend to be squeezed in at the schools where students are
employed while students work full-time. It is also noted that the qual-
ity of the administrator presiding in these schools can vary from excel-
lent to failing.
Inappropriate degrees: Fifth, the report claimed that the field of educational
leadership was flooded by too many degrees and certificates, and that
these credentials held different meaning in different places. Moreover, it
was argued that aspiring principals and superintendents are often set to
work toward scholarly degrees that had no relevance to their jobs.
Poor research: Sixth, the report described research in the field of educational
administration as overwhelmingly nonempirical and disconnected from
practice. Furthermore, it noted that even senior faculty were known for
their lack of scholarly activity and that questions “as basic as whether
school leadership programs have any impact on student achievement”
remained unanswered.
The report presents a disapproving and pessimistic account of university-

based leadership preparation, noting that the quality of such programs ranged
from “inadequate to appalling” (Levine, 2005, p. 23) and that they are engaged
in a “‘race to the bottom’ in which they compete for students by lowering
admission standards, watering down coursework, and offering faster and less
demanding degrees” (p. 24). Statements such as the following:
These programs have also been responsible for conferring master’s degrees
on students who demonstrate anything but mastery. They have awarded
doctorates that are doctoral in name only. And they have enrolled principals
and superintendents in courses of study that are not relevant to their jobs.
(Levine, p. 24)
are commonplace, although they are not the most discourteous commen-
taries within the pages of the report. More wounding are statements like the
following:
Too often these new programs have turned out to be little more than graduate
credit dispensers. They award the equivalent of green stamps, which can be
traded in for raises and promotions, to teachers who have no intention of
becoming administrators. (Levine, p. 24)

To address these problems, the report provides a detailed prescription that

calls for the elimination of incentives for reducing program quality, higher
standards for leadership programs, closing poor-quality programs, and
developing a new course of study. Specifically, the report recommends the
following six strategies:
School systems, municipalities, and states must find alternatives to salary

scales that grant raises merely for accumulating credits and degrees. The
report urges that raises be tied to attaining the specific skills and knowl-
edge that educators need to do their jobs, rather than raises being tied to
levels of graduate education.
Universities must champion high standards for education schools and their
leadership programs by embracing financial practices that strengthen
those programs. The report condemned the practices by many university
leaders of using education school programs as cash cows or systemati-
cally underfunding them.
All leadership programs should be rigorously evaluated, and weak
programs should be strengthened or closed. In addition to calling for
rigorous evaluation, the report offered nine criteria for evaluation,
including program purpose, curriculum content and balance, admission
and graduation standards, faculty, research, resources, and degrees
offered.
The current grab bag of courses that constitutes preparation for a career in
educational leadership must give way to a relevant and challenging cur-
riculum designed to prepare effective school leaders. A new degree, the
master’s in educational administration, should be developed. Advocating
that educational administration programs need to equip graduates with
the skills and knowledge necessary to lead today’s schools . . . the
report recommends that the program for aspirants to school leadership
positions should be the M.E.A., masters of educational administration,
consisting of both basic courses in [business] management and education
(Levine, 2005, p. 66). Furthermore, it is argued that the M.E.A. should
become an administrator’s terminal degree.
The doctor of education degree (Ed.D.) in school leadership should be
eliminated. The rationale for this recommendation is based on the
understanding that the Ed.D. “is a watered-down doctorate that dimin-
ishes the field of educational administration and provides a back door
for weak education schools to gain doctoral granting authority”
(Levine, 2005, p. 67) and that it is an unnecessary degree for educa-
tional leaders.
The doctor of philosophy degree (Ph.D.) in school leadership should be reserved
for preparing researchers (Levine, 2005, pp. 63-67).

The impression that this particular story of university-based educational

leadership preparation creates is one of absurdity, chicanery, and indolence.
In this story, unqualified and lazy faculty engage in substandard research
and promote useless, knowledge-free preparation; university administrators
exploit programs for profit; bottom-of-the-barrel educators seek to boost
their salaries with no intention of seeking a leadership position; and aspiring
leaders with questionable motivation pay for credentials rather than earning
them. This is a story that promotes the idea that universities not only are not
committed to preparing quality leaders for the future but also are uninterested
in improving programs through needed program changes, given that con-
tinuing to do what they have always done is both easy and profitable. The
report ended with the suggestion, “It would be best if education schools and
their educational administration programs took the lead in bringing about
improvement” (Levine, 2005, p. 69), which, although suggesting that the
field had the capacity to make need changes, also reinforced the notion that
the field had not already taken on this responsibility.
Report Two/Story Two
The work of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational

Leadership Preparation (NCAELP), as described in Young, Petersen, and
Short (2002), like the “Educating School Leaders” report (Levine, 2005),
underscored the need for changes and improvement in the preparation of
educational leaders. The report, entitled “The Complexity of Substantive
Reform: A Call for Interdependence Among Key Stakeholders” (Young
et al.), explored the challenges facing contemporary university educational
leadership preparation within “its complex and overlapping environments,”
seeking “to understand and analyze the factors that support and detract
from a program’s ability to provide quality leadership preparation” (p. 140).
The authors identified eight such factors, pointing out that although the
eight do not adequately capture all of the factors affecting contemporary
university preparation programs, they draw attention to some of the most
recalcitrant ones. These factors are as follows:
Institutional support for educational leadership programs: The first challenge

identified in this report was that university administrators tend to know very
little about leadership preparation, the resource needs of such programs, their
partnerships with the field, or the type of scholarship that is needed to advance
the field. As a result, many programs lacked needed institutional support.

Faculty professional development: The second challenge identified was the

lack of resources and opportunities for quality faculty professional devel-
opment. Traditionally, professional development was an individual expe-
rience and rarely focused on the skills or knowledge needed to build
stronger educational leadership preparation programs.
Increased numbers of preparation programs: Third, according to this report,
the increased number of programs and the accompanying competition
among programs for students were leading to a weakening of program
quality rather than an increase.
Pool of capable and diverse applicants: Fourth, preparation programs were
increasingly reporting a shortage of qualified applicants for their programs
similar to the shortages reported in districts.
Ongoing program enhancement: Fifth, the pace of change in schools and
school systems made continuous program enhancement necessary, yet
the scarce resources available in most university programs made such
efforts difficult to sustain.
Program content: Sixth, although programs did engage in program improve-
ment efforts, the authors pointed out that more reliable evaluation systems
were needed to ensure these efforts were having their desired impact.
Licensure and accreditation: Seventh, although national accreditation require-
ments for programs were increasing, state requirements were loosening
and a number of states had weakened licensure requirements for educa-
tional leaders, leaving an uneven policy environment for programs. In
addition, it was noted that few educational leadership faculty participated
in national or state discussions of licensure, accreditation, or state program
approval.
Focus of the profession: Eighth, the authors argued that the profession needed
to focus its work on children, their education, and their development.
Following their discussion of these eight factors, Young et al. (2002) noted
that perhaps the biggest challenge faced by university preparation programs
was their isolation from other educational leadership stakeholders. They wrote,
Education is the single common ground and hope left in an increasingly

splintered society and the success of children is at the very center of the lead-
ership profession. What has become increasingly evident in the last thirty
years of the 20th century, however, is that school leaders cannot ensure the
success of all children alone; likewise, the preparation of educational leaders
must be approached collaboratively. University-based preparation programs,
professional organizations, and field-based practitioners need each other in
order to achieve this goal. Yet, universities, professional organizations, policy
makers, school administrators, and the private sector have not employed their
collective potential to improve the profession of school administration. (p. 157)

Although the report emphasized the difficulties presented by traditional

patterns of responsibility in leadership preparation, the authors are not
deterred; rather, they call for stakeholders not only to acknowledge the
interdependence among key stakeholders but also to embrace the metaphor
of a league as a conceptual framework to accomplish systemic change in
the preparation of educational leaders.
In the report, Young et al. (2002) noted that using a league as a metaphor
would require deep changes in the field, with stakeholders forming an
alliance focused on “preparing competent, compassionate, and pedagogi-
cally oriented leaders,” and then considered how such a shift might affect
the field. Rather than bulleting and describing lists of recommendations in
the traditional way, the authors embedded images of what the future might
hold if the field were to embrace the league metaphor within stories. In
these stories, the authors pointed out how relevant stakeholder communities
could collaborate to overcome many of the challenges they had identified.
Looking from the perspective of the university, the report highlighted the
shifts the league metaphor would have for department faculty, faculty from
other departments, the department chair, the college dean, and university
administrators. Similarly, shifting roles and responsibilities are also identified
for professional associations, field practitioners, state and national policy
makers, foundations, and business partners.
In concluding the report, Young et al. (2002) noted that “it would be
naïve to suggest, given the complexity of our current circumstances, that
implementation of the linkages proposed in this model will immediately
‘solve’ the problems facing school leadership preparation” (p. 170); however,
they clearly expressed the belief that the field is capable of developing
“competent, compassionate, instructional leaders committed to high quality
education for every child” if they act as a league (p. 170). Moreover, they
argued that the benefits of such a change would be broad, affecting adminis-
trative aspirants, preparation programs, universities, professional organiza-
tions, as well as the teachers and children in our nation’s schools.
The impression that this story of university-based educational leadership
preparation creates is different from that of “Educating School Leaders”
(Levine, 2005). Although Young et al. (2002) pointed out similar challenges,
the way they are presented is quite different. In “The Complexity of Substantive
Reform” (Young et al.), the impression is one of a field that is working to
support school leaders through preparation experiences but is falling short
in places due primarily to actors’ isolation from important partners and
resources. Thus, the story is not one of chicanery or indolence, but of efforts

made less efficient by their segregation. To illustrate the difference, consider

the vilification in “Educating School Leaders” (Levine) of university
administrators who are accused of exploiting programs for profit. Contrast
this to the picture painted in “The Complexity of Substantive Reform”
(Young et al.), in which university administrators are seen as important
partners in supporting program development. Here, the problem of institu-
tional support is located in the loose coupling of higher education institu-
tions, which makes it difficult for university administrators to have a clear
understanding of the purposes and resource needs of individual programs,
rather than in greedy and tightfisted administrators.
A second example is how each of the reports treated the issue of the
knowledge base on which leadership preparation is based. In “Complexity”
(Young et al., 2002), the authors expressed grave concern about the lack of
data available to the field on which to base future preparation innovations
and called on the field to develop a system of evaluation that would provide
helpful data for these purposes. In contrast, in “Educating School Leaders”
(Levine, 2005), this issue was treated quite differently. Bolded and offset on
page 45, we found the following quote: “The body of research in educational
administration cannot answer questions as basic as whether school leadership
programs have any impact on student achievement in the schools that gradu-
ates of these programs lead” (Levine, p. 45). Levine went on to state,
There is an absence of research on what value these programs add, what

aspects of the curriculum or educational experience make a difference, and
what elements are unnecessary or minimally useful in enhancing children’s
growth and educational attainment, K-12 teacher development and effective-
ness, and overall K-12 school functioning. (p. 45)
Although this was more the case in 2002, when “Complexity” was written
(Young et al., 2002), it was less so in 2005, when Levine released his report.
In fact, recent years have witnessed focused, effective efforts to improve the
knowledge base on which educational leadership preparation is based.
Indeed, two national task forces—the Joint Research Taskforce on Educational
Leadership Preparation (University Council for Educational Administration
[UCEA], 2006) and the UCEA/LTEL Educational Leadership Evaluation
Taskforce (Orr & Pounder, 2007)—are focused on such efforts and have
developed tools, devised ways to share these tools among programs, and
developed a structure for warehousing and analyzing data to develop and
share reports for program improvement efforts. It appears, however, that
these and other similar efforts were not known to Levine.

A final example of the difference between the two reports is the discus-
sion of adjunct faculty. In “Educating School Leaders” (Levine, 2005), the
use of adjunct faculty is maligned and condemned with much elaboration;
in “Complexity,” Young et al. (2002) described how to enhance programs
through providing professional development to adjunct faculty, integrating
them into program planning, and using them as instructors and supervisors.
The impression that one develops of adjunct faculty, their value, and their
potential contributions to leadership development after reading the two
reports is qualitatively different.
“The Complexity of Substantive Reform” (Young et al., 2002) tells a
story of hope. Based on a careful and comprehensive analysis of the field, it
points out contemporary challenges, describes accomplishments, and high-
lights the strengths and resources available within different stakeholder
groups; then it demonstrates how by working as a league in the preparation
of future leaders, the field as a whole would benefit. It is a story that demon-
strates knowledge of and faith in the field of educational leadership.
Examining Meaning Making
The two reports on leadership preparation shared above, although focusing

on very similar issues, presented exceedingly different stories of the field.
In this section, we use the work of Nyberg (1981), Fraser (1989), and Glassner
(1999) to conduct a closer investigation of stories and their contribution to
the culture of fear in educational administration. In our analysis, we follow the
guidance of Fraser and Glassner and identify those involved in defining the
problem, examine what actions were suggested to remedy the problem, and
consider the potential implications of implementing the respective reports’
recommendations.
The Messengers
Although, as Nyberg (1981) argued, storytelling is a tool for increasing
one’s power and influence, he cautioned that one should not automatically
equate the use of stories with deliberate deception or ignoble propaganda.
Although they can certainly be used this way, stories are also used to motivate,
teach, connect, and influence. This is one reason why Fraser (1989) argued that
one must pay attention to the players behind the meaning making. In this sec-
tion, we share some information about the authors, which we hope will be use-
ful to the reader when interpreting the meaning and purpose of the two reports.

The author of “Educating School Leaders” was Arthur Levine, who at

the time the report was released was the president of Teachers College at
Columbia University. In the first few pages of the report, Levine proclaimed
himself an “insider . . . [who, he claimed,] could speak candidly to the
education school community” and whose “analysis could not be dismissed
as the work of a know-nothing or an ideologue” (2005, p. 7). Prior to taking
his post as president of Teachers College, Levine was a faculty member
who studied higher education issues. Although his time at Teachers College
was characterized by major change, his vita reflected little experience in
higher education program evaluation or improvement.
The Annenberg, Ford, and Kauffman Foundations provided funding to
Levine through the Education Schools Project headquartered at Teachers
College. He was funded to conduct a 4-year study of the United States’ edu-
cation schools and to write a series of policy reports on the preparation of
teachers, leaders, and educational researchers. Although site visit team
members included researchers like Steven Bossert, Anne Lewis, Cecil
Miskel, Judith Phair, Bob Rosenblatt, Gail Schneider, Claire Smrekar, and
Stanley Wellborne, Levine expressed that full responsibility for the reports
and their contents was his alone. The first report to be released focused on
the education of school leaders. According to Levine (2005), “This subject
was selected for the initial report because the quality of leadership in our
schools has seldom mattered more” (p. 6).
The authors of “The Complexity of Substantive Reform: A Call for
Interdependence Among Key Stakeholders” (2002) were Michelle Young,
the executive director of UCEA; George Petersen, the associate director of
UCEA; and Paula Short, the vice president of the University of Tennessee
System. All three were experienced faculty in educational administration
preparation programs, advocates for improvement in leadership preparation
programs, and members of NCAELP. The “Complexity” report was written
as part of a special issue of the Educational Administration Quarterly
(EAQ) that focused on the work of the NCAELP commission and included
papers commissioned for it.
NCAELP was established in 2001 to provide a formal opportunity for indi-
viduals, organizations, and institutions to work together to analyze educational
leadership and the complex environments within which preparation and prac-
tice occur as well as to encourage widespread improvement in the preparation
and professional development provided to future and practicing educational
leaders. It was sponsored by the National Policy Board for Educational
Administration (NPBEA) in partnership with the UCEA. Its membership
included stakeholders from the major practitioner associations (e.g., the

National Association of Secondary School Principals, Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, American Association of School
Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, and
National Staff Development Council), universities, and the field of practice.
The “Complexity of Substantive Reform” piece was written following the
initial meeting of the commission, incorporated the ideas and information
shared during the meeting and subsequent discussions, and was intended to
provide a framework for future collaborative work in the planning and deliv-
ery of educational leadership preparation and professional development.
Spreading the Message

Although the “Educating School Leaders” report, the study on which it
was based, and the connection between the data and the findings raised
many questions and were strongly criticized2 (Imig, 2005; Orr & Young,
n.d.; Young, Crow, Orr, Ogawa, & Creighton, 2005), the report content was
widely publicized and accepted as truth. A week before its public release,
the report was presented at a Heckinger Institute workshop for education
reporters and discussed at a highly publicized press conference. That same
day, it was picked up by the Associated Press and reported in major news-
papers like the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Subsequently, stories
about the report appeared in newspapers across the United States. The
report itself was posted and linked to, and became the subject of blogs on
numerous Web sites. It became the subject of a Lou Dobbs segment on
CNN, and it was used as the basis for policy action in several states.
In their analysis of the media’s coverage of the report, Orr and Young
(n.d.) found that newspaper reporters failed to make use of Colvin’s (2005)
journalist standards as an analytic framework for reviewing the report. For
example, they did not question the methods, analysis, or conclusions of the
report, and they did not consider alternate stories or explanations. Rather,
the articles and editorials drew on six sources as validation of the report’s
findings. The three most prominent were the author’s former position as
president of a college of education (89%); the college’s prestige and national
ranking (58%); and the agreement of one or more national, regional, or local
experts with the report’s conclusions (37%). As one journalist reported,
“The fact he heads a respected education program gives the study some teeth”
(Stephens, 2005, p. B1). Some journalists also used the foundations that
funded the study (11%) and the sheer scope and quantity of data collected
(26%) as evidence of the report’s validity. None questioned whether the
research had been peer reviewed. Only 42% of the articles incorporated

views that were critical of the findings, and none incorporated views that
were critical of the research itself. Furthermore, the criticisms that were
used were primarily from one or more national, regional, or local experts
about the conclusions drawn.
Interestingly, unlike “Educating School Leaders,” the “Complexity” report
and the work of NCAELP itself received little national attention. Although
NCAELP membership included all of the major practitioner associations,
university deans, a university provost, award-winning practitioners, and well-
known and respected educational leadership scholars, coverage of its work
in the national press was minimal. There was no mention of the commis-
sion or its work in major national newspapers and only one small article in
Education Week. Similarly, the Web sites on which news of the commission
appeared were primarily associated with university educational leadership
preparation (e.g., the UCEA and NCPEA). The “Complexity” report, pub-
lished in a special issue of EAQ, was the most frequently cited article in
EAQ in both 2002 and 2003, which indicates interest within the higher
education field. Yet little attention was paid to it outside of the field of educa-
tional leadership preparation.
It is hardly worth pointing out that the attention each of these reports
received in the media was as different as the two reports. Cobb and Elder
(1995) suggested that for a report or policy issue to gain widespread attention
and eventually agenda status, it must command the attention of one or more
individuals who hold positions of power or influence. This type of support,
however, requires access; and individuals and groups with more financial
resources or status, as well as those who are strategically located in the social
or economic structures of society, tend to be harder to ignore and, as a result,
find it easier to gain access than less well-connected, well-placed groups
(Cobb & Elder). Moreover, greater access can also be gained when an indi-
vidual or group is perceived to have higher status and resources, which Levine’s
status as the president of Teachers College clearly provided (Ackerman,
2006). Levine’s status then provided “Educating School Leaders” with greater
legitimacy.
It was not, however, simply Levine’s status or the resources that Levine had
at his disposal through the Heckinger Institute and foundation connections
that enabled the message of “Educating School Leaders” to be distributed
so widely. Although these certainly assisted, it is more likely that the message
itself was more appealing than that contained within the “Complexity”
report. “Educating School Leaders” quoted heavily from well-known con-
temporary and historical critiques of leadership preparation and played on
popular rhetoric about education and accountability. Thus, the critiques

held a familiarity that was appealing to most readers. Furthermore, the report
capitalized on American notions of individual effort and responsibility as
well as popular market notions of accountability. The “Educating School
Leaders” report fed what Glassner (1999) referred to as the “media tapeworm”
what it enjoyed eating: disparaging stories that implicated all university-
based leadership preparation programs, their faculty, and the students that
attended them—stories enhanced by anti-intellectual sound bites and based
on questionable data and analyses.
The “Complexity” report, in contrast, did not tap into popular rhetoric.
The message of the league, as noted above, was one of confidence in the
ability of the field to work together to provide the kinds of leadership experi-
ences, through both preparation and professional development, that leaders
needed to be effective in all schools with all children. The report contains a
close analysis of the field, describes challenges and accomplishments, high-
lights the common mission of stakeholder groups, and then urges stake-
holders to embrace a collective responsibility for leadership preparation.
The authors did not point fingers; they did not paint a picture of despair but
one of opportunity. Such a story, although nice enough, does not comple-
ment current talk-tough rhetoric about higher education programs, nor does
it fit with widely accepted notions of how potential competitors operate
within a market.
When one creates a fiction or tells a story, one is creating a sense of
meaning or a structure for interpreting events. This is best done by telling
stories that “appeal somehow to the core of meanings that support and
transform beliefs” (Nyberg, 1981, p. 72). Both reports told stories about
educational leadership preparation: “the stories and the effects they produce
(e.g., deception, motivation, inspiration) are themselves aspects of power
which influence and sometimes control power relations” (Nyberg, p. 74).
The Impact of the Messages

As noted earlier in this article, there is a higher level of anxiety within
and external to the field concerning the quality of leadership preparation and
practice. In particular, an uncertainty has developed around how educational
leaders are prepared. Both reports fed this uncertainty. Both reports expressed
concern about a number of challenges facing leadership preparation, including
the knowledge base on which preparation is based, although these concerns
were expressed in different ways. Although we cannot be sure of the ulti-
mate purpose that each report was created to serve, it is easy to surmise that
“Educating School Leaders” was intended to directly influence leadership

preparation programs, schools of education, and the higher education policy

community. Its findings and conclusions were crafted to influence policy
and practice. The “Complexity” document, in contrast, was intended to influ-
ence the educational leadership stakeholder community. Its authors had
both grand and modest goals. With regard to the former, the report used an
argument of collaboration and collective responsibility in hopes of trans-
forming traditional boundaries and practices to create a fresh approach to
leadership preparation and professional development that reflected the
field’s interdependence. The authors’ more modest goals included raising
awareness within the field of a number of challenges that needed to be
addressed and goading their readers to think about and address those chal-
lenges within their broader contexts.
Although the two reports received different levels of attention and arguably
had a different level of impact within and outside the field, each did have
an impact. The “Complexity” report had a smaller audience, primarily within
university preparation programs. And although the recommendation that
the field adopt the metaphor of a league in providing preparation and pro-
fessional development has not been adopted full-scale, there are many more
university–school district partnerships operating today than was the case
5 years ago. Furthermore, the report may have had broader impact than
spreading the idea of a league. The attention that the complexity report
brought to both the challenges facing the field as well as the recommenda-
tions of the national commission can be inferred by the increased attention
given to those issues following the report’s publication as well as the
NCAELP recommendations that have been pursued (e.g., to develop a system
for program evaluation, and to develop widespread involvement in research
focused on leadership preparation as well as venues like journals and a hand-
book in which to publish such research). It appears, then, that the impact of
“Complexity” has been more subtle than that of “Educating School Leaders”
(Levine, 2005); as such, it likely raised less alarm within the field.
As noted earlier, “Educating School Leaders” (Levine, 2005) received
widespread attention, its content was debated at national conferences, Levine
was invited to speak at countless meetings, and several states developed
policy agendas3 in response to the report. Within educational journals, the
report was discussed, alluded to, and used to argue in support of or against
a number of initiatives within colleges of education. Throughout time, as it
was repeatedly cited and quoted, the legitimacy of the report increased, and
fewer scholars or groups raised questions or concerns about the report and
the research on which it was based.

As in any field—and public education itself—quality varies widely across

programs. Indeed, the variability in quality is what spurred current efforts
to improve program quality through standards setting, certification require-
ments, and assessment, which have strengthened many programs, closed
others, and fostered new programs (Young et al., 2005). In fact, if Levine
had thoroughly investigated leadership preparation, as he has claimed to
have done, he would have discovered that a number of high-quality programs
do exist. These programs recruit high-quality educators, provide high-quality
and substantive leadership preparation programs that are based on current
research and national standards, and are aimed at developing leaders who
will be successful with all children. These are not, however, the stories that
were told within the “Educating School Leaders” report, and, as a result,
these are not the stories that are shaping opinions of leadership preparation,
both within and outside the university.
It is difficult to predict what the long-term impact of the “Educating
School Leaders” report will be. It could result in broad improvements in
preparation programs, or it could result in a shift from majority public to
majority private providers of leadership preparation. It is clear, though, that
for now the impact has not been altogether positive. The report overlooked
many good programs and innovative practices and framed findings only in
negative terms, misrepresenting in many cases both the study’s own data
and the results of other research4 projects (Young et al., 2005). The rhetoric
within the report fed on the uncertainty and discontent swelling in and about
the field, and attempted, with some success, to redefine the problem of leader-
ship preparation and to make and share meaning about how it can be fixed.
Conclusion
Whether one speaks an imagined truth or a proven one; whether one aims at
another’s vulnerabilities or strengths—in all cases, if one is trying to enlist
the cooperation of the other person for purposes of accomplishing a plan for
action, then one is using fiction as a form of power. (Nyberg, 1981, p. 75)
In this piece, we have examined the role that two recent reports played in
encouraging a culture of anxiety or fear in and about educational leadership
preparation. We used the work of Nyberg, Fraser (1989), and Glassner (1999)
as well as scholarship about the role of fear within the condition of moder-
nity to help us better understand how stories and other forms of meaning
making can be used to create or sustain fear and anxiety.

Although meaning making is not always a negative or manipulative practice,

it can be. Moreover, how stories and facts within stories are constructed and
shared can influence the framing and impact of an issue (Ackerman, 2006). The
words and numbers used to portray facts can be used to persuade—or
dissuade—both the public and decision makers that something is wrong,
that an issue needs to be addressed, or that a certain course of action should
be taken, which makes the examination of stories and storytellers within the
politics of education both interesting and important.
Our examination of the two reports highlighted striking differences in
their content, style, purpose, as well as potential for short- and long-term
impact. As discussed above, the “Educating School Leaders” report is a
slick policy document that plays on common sense and corresponds nicely
with contemporary normative belief systems, particularly those found in
the mass media. The “Complexity” report is much less polished, contains a
less familiar and more difficult storyline to follow, and suggests a major shift
in the way preparation is planned and delivered. Without question, “Educating
School Leaders” has had a broader audience and has fed the fires of anxiety
around leadership preparation to a greater degree than “The Complexity of
Substantive Reform.” What is questionable is the characterization of educa-
tion schools, leadership preparation, leadership faculty, and leadership
candidates within the “Educating School Leaders” report; the use of these
characterizations to raise the level of anxiety within and outside of the field
about leadership preparation; as well as the ability of the list of recommen-
dations offered by Levine to spur widespread improvement of educational
leadership preparation programs.
Notes
1. See Young et al. (2002). Emotions, such as fear, have long been the subject of psycho-
logical and social psychological research. Although it was traditionally assumed that emotions
originated from individual actors, Andrew Tudor (2004) argued that the emotions that are avail-
able to us as individuals are socially constructed. Different cultures at different times provide
selective sets of plausible emotive activity. Tudor noted,
Over given time periods and in particular socio-cultural contexts, specific modes of
emotionality are widely practiced, actively traded on, and routinely expected by members
of a social collectivity. Any culture seeks both to promote and proscribe certain forms
of emotional expression, options which are realized by social agents in institutionalized
modes of social activity. (p. 245)
2. Programs in the United States “range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the
country’s leading universities” (Levine, 2005, p. 23), yet the limited information provided on

program sampling, measurement, and data limitations would not support such broad generalization
and conclusions (see Young et al., 2005, for a fuller discussion of the generalizability limitations
of this study). Moreover, many report conclusions were based on limited or no data, with
unspecified or single-case samples (Orr & Young, n.d.)
3. Evidence suggests that the report is being used in some state and institutional policy circles
to inform program reviews and initiate program evaluations (Orr & Young, n.d.).
4. His finding regarding the dissatisfaction of administrators with the quality of their
preparation is contradicted by both other national surveys and his own results. To illustrate, the
American Association of School Administrators’ The Study of the American Superintendency
2000 (Glass, Björk, & Brunner, 2000) found that 69.4% of superintendents rated preparation
programs as excellent or good. Levine acknowledged that administrators are positive about
their own leadership preparation but less so about preparation programs in general. In fact,
93% of administrators surveyed in Levine’s own “Principal’s Survey” (see Levine, 2005) rated
their own preparation programs as “very” (55%) or “somewhat” (38%) valuable. Only 6%
rated these programs as not valuable.
References
Ackerman, D. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low
wages. Educational Policy, 20(1), 85-112.
Baker, B., Orr, M. T., & Young, M. D. (2007). Academic drift, institutional production and
professional distribution of graduate degrees in educational administration. Lawrence:
University of Kansas Press.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1995). Issues and agendas. In M. A. Cahn (Ed.), Public policy:
The essential readings (pp. 96-104). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Colvin, R. E. (2005). Covering the conflict and missing the point. In M. S. Crocco (Ed.),
Social studies and the press: Keeping the beast at bay (pp. 229-248). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Durkheim, E. (1897/1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.
Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social
theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Glass, T., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency 2000:
A look at the superintendent in the new millennium. Thousand Oaks, CA: AASA/Corwin Press.
Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things.
New York: Basic.
Gonzalez, M., & Delgado, R. (2006). The politics of fear: How Republicans use money, race
and the media to win. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005, January and March). The politics of principal preparation
reforms. Education Policy, 19(1), 155-180.
Imig, D. (2005, March 14). American Associations of Colleges of Teacher Education rejects
call for eliminating the Ed.D. degree for school leaders (press release). Washington, DC:
American Associations of Colleges of Teacher Education. Retrieved September 21, 2005,
from http://www.aacte.org/News_Awards/press_room/pr031405.pdf
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Education Schools Project. Retrieved April 30,
2005, from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Fina1313.pdf

Marx, K. (1844/1988). The economic and philosophic manuscripts. In The economic and
philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist manifesto. London: Prometheus.
Nyberg, D. (1981). Power over power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Orr, D., & Pounder, D. (2007). Taskforce report: Six years later and future directions. Retrieved
November 13, 2007, from http://www.ucea.org/evaluation/pdf/reportfinal.pdf
Orr, M. T. (2006, March). Mapping leadership preparation innovation in our nation’s schools
of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7) 492-499.
Orr, M. T., & Young, M. D. (N.d.). Researcher integrity: Direct and indirect fallout in the field.
Unpublished manuscript.
Passas, N., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (1997). The future of anomie theory. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Southern Regional Educational Board. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign
of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Stephens, S. (2005, March 20). Training for school administrators fails to make the grade,
study finds. Cleveland Plain Dealer, p. B1.
Tudor, A. (2004). The moral of the tale. The New Humanist, 119(3). Retrieved on April 20,
2007, from: http://newhumanist.org.uk/742
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). (2006). Joint Research Taskforce
on Educational Leadership Preparation. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www
.ucea.org
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). FY 2005 school leadership application for grants.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement.
Young, M. D., Crow, G., Orr, M. T., Ogawa, R., & Creighton, T. (2005). An educative look at
“Educating School Leaders.” UCEA Review, 47(2), 1-5. Retrieved November 4, 2007,
from http://www.ncate.org/documents/EdNews/EducLeadersRespMar18.pdf
Young, M. D., Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform:
A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly,
38(2), 137-175.
Michelle D. Young, PhD, is an associate professor of educational leadership and policy at the
University of Texas at Austin and the executive director of the University Council for
Educational Administration. Her scholarship focuses on how school leaders and school policies
can ensure equitable and quality experiences for all students and adults who learn and work in
schools. Dr. Young is the recipient of the William J. Davis award for the most outstanding
article published in a volume of the Educational Administration Quarterly. Her work has also
been published in the Review of Educational Research, Educational Researcher, American
Educational Research Journal, Journal of School Leadership, and International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, among other publications.
Curtis Brewer is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Administration at the

University of Texas at Austin. His research examines the politics of educational reform.

Fear and The Preparation of School Leaders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fear and The Preparation of School Leaders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Policy

The Role of Ambiguity, Anxiety,

An uncertainty has developed around the “core technology” of preparing

Keywords: leadership preparation; late modernity; educational context;

I t is critical that schools have leaders who are prepared to do everything

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2005), a conventional

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Modernity and the Politics of Fear

Modernity and Fear

Early connections between notions of modernity and fear can be found

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

For example, Durkheim’s critique of the modern world hinged on the

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

aspects of life are susceptible to change and deconstruction. Reason and

Fear, Meaning, and Power

If, as we have delineated above, the condition of modernity fosters

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

[s]ites of struggle where groups with unequal discursive (and nondiscursive)

The dynamics of late modernity trade on uncertainty, encouraging anxi-

Fear and Making Meaning in Educational

Below, we examine two contemporary reports that critique educational

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Report One/Story One

An irrelevant curriculum: First, according to the report, the typical program

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

The report presents a disapproving and pessimistic account of university-

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

To address these problems, the report provides a detailed prescription that

School systems, municipalities, and states must find alternatives to salary

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

The impression that this particular story of university-based educational

Report Two/Story Two

The work of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational

Institutional support for educational leadership programs: The first challenge

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Faculty professional development: The second challenge identified was the

Education is the single common ground and hope left in an increasingly

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Although the report emphasized the difficulties presented by traditional

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

made less efficient by their segregation. To illustrate the difference, consider

There is an absence of research on what value these programs add, what

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Examining Meaning Making

The two reports on leadership preparation shared above, although focusing

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

The author of “Educating School Leaders” was Arthur Levine, who at

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

National Association of Secondary School Principals, Association for

Spreading the Message

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

The Impact of the Messages

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

preparation programs, schools of education, and the higher education policy

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

As in any field—and public education itself—quality varies widely across

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Although meaning making is not always a negative or manipulative practice,

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 3, 2015