National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA)

This entry presents a brief overview of the role of NCPEA in reform and educational dissent. The national dialogue about educational administration and leadership has, for more than 60 years, been influenced by NCPEA. Although under attack, educational administration remains an important academic field, with thousands of students with specialized education in the field filling administrative positions as they open in U.S. schools. The first NCPEA meeting was in 1947, hosted by Walter Cocking, dean of the College of Education at the University of Georgia, and International Business Machines. By some accounts this places the beginning of NCPEA around the time of the beginning of educational administration as a profession. NCPEA has worked closely with the practitioner groups such as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) since the beginning. A NCPEA–AASA advisory committee started in the mid-1970s and a “Conference Within a Convention” began in 1989. J. R. Hoyle and D. M. Estes posit that this partnership has helped balance research with practice.

Early on, much like the field of educational administration, NCPEA tended to believe and act as if the way to reform was through the various [Page 620]social sciences. However, professors came from a variety of perspectives and used a variety of methods, and this variety expanded in the 1980s to include critics of traditional social sciences. One group of critics, known as critical theorists, believe that the process and theories used to study education may further legitimize the inequities that exist. Critical theorists led the way for more recent scholars seeking to expand educational administration toward social justice. These critics are prominent in the literature. An examination of recent articles and conference presentations shows an increasing number of scholars attempting to deal with social justice. Critics (such as postmodernists or poststructuralists) are part of the collegial dialogue at NCPEA. Yet there is still strong federal emphasis on quantitative data and traditional approaches, and these elements remain part of the dialogue.

The nature of NCPEA has changed since 1947 when an assembly of more than 70 male educational administration leaders (mostly professors) gathered. Lesley H. Browder discusses the exchange of ideas, especially those grouped together as visions, such as what he refers to as traditional (in search of truth) and the postmodern to liberated education from the “regime of truth.”

NCPEA has become more diverse in terms of gender, race, and so forth, making the organization richer and a better reflection of the present world. This demographic change is viewed as positive, but other aspects of change raise some concern. Browder described the first 3 decades of NCPEA as a “nonorganization,” which was less pretentious, not as formal, and definitely not a “gladiatorial arena type of professional organization, where professors go to advance their careers, their reputation, and their egos in the arena of impeccably correct scholarship.” Browder asserts this valuing of the relationship over prestige represents the essence of the NCPEA professoriate. NCPEA has supported a climate in which an idea foreign to one gets a reasonable hearing.

A decade ago national administrator certification guidelines were developed by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. An additional change to NCPEA came in 1988 when the organization voted to join the National Policy Board for Educational Administration and hire an executive director in addition to opening a national headquarters. This change coincided with other changes in the organizational culture of NCPEA (e.g., the addition of more awards and the lessening of a family atmosphere). Traditionally many professors would bring their whole family to the summer conference (often held on a college campus with professors and families staying in the dorms), but in the mid-1990s the conference shifted to hotels with conference facilities and attendance of family members started to decrease. The question became whether NCPEA could be a national player and be more scholarly, with the attachment of prestige to some selected scholars or works, and still maintain the supportive collegial atmosphere. Browder states that the NCPEA elected to do both, betting that NCPEA could convert itself, deal with contradictory vision and desires, and hold on to its core mission in the process.

...