Blazing New Trails - Connexions

312 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PREPARATION
The first three questions were derived by assessing in a pragmatic way what the
consumer wanted operationally in an educational leadership program. The fourth question
addressed the quality of the program, which was desired by the student and faculty within the
program.
The first question dealt with how much of the program should be delivered online or
asynchronous. A variety of options were discussed including maintaining a face-to-face
program, using a hybrid approach in each class, to offering some of the classes online. In the
end, it was determined that anything less than a totally online program would adversely
impact the geographical area the program could recruit from and thus negatively impact
potential enrollment.
The second question addressed the issue of how long should it take to complete the
program. It was determined that students wanted a time efficient program and the best way to
achieve that objective was to bundle classes together in blocks of study. Thus a 30 semester
credit hour Master of Education degree could be completed in semesters or 15–18 months as a
part time student. The principal certification could be completed in 22 semester credit hour or
three semesters for a student who already possessed a master’s degree (see Appendix A).
The bundling of courses also impacted the third question, which was how much
should it cost? By bundling courses, it reduced the number of times that student registered and
paid fees that are typically charged by universities such as: athletics, fine and performing arts,
computer, etc. Typically, each semester a student pays the fees irrespective of the number of
hours that he or she is taking. Thus, the more hours taken results in less semesters registered
and less fees paid. In addition, we approached the central administration and proposed a $120
per semester credit hour scholarship be awarded to each student to reduce his or her tuition.
We also presented a proposal which indicated a 20% increase in semester credit hour
generation would offset the amount provided through the scholarship. Thus, we were able to
offer a program that was highly cost competitive.
Obviously, the fourth question was the key to the program development. The one non-
negotiable was to design a high quality program the faculty could support. The program was
based on the principal competencies identified by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which
are based on the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
The faculty determined the courses should be provided in four integrated thematic blocks (see
Figure 1). Block I is an Introduction to Educational Leadership. Block II is Best Practices in
Curriculum and Instruction. Block III is Special Populations and Special Functions in
Schools and Block IV is The Principalship. Block II-IV has applied experiences to
complement the coursework (see Appendix A).
FINDINGS
Data were collected to compare the last face-to-face group of students (2008–2009) to
the first online group of students (2009–2010). Specifically, semester credit hours generated,
semester credit hour capacity/efficiency, revenue generated and performance on the state
certification examination were compared.
Table 1 shows a comparison of semester credit hours generated for the face-to-face
and on line program. With minimal marketing of the program, limited to e-mails to school
districts, information on the department’s website and word of mouth from students the
Department experienced a 250% increase in semester credit hour generation.