The current state of the education system deepens the importance of educational leadership in the field that is capable of initiating and leading changes throughout the system. Leithwood and Reihl (2003) attributed this increase in importance to a number of conditions and trends. First, there has been greater scrutiny  of school results, raising the question of how educational leadership can affect these results. Second, the schools and the complex surrounding social, political and economic environments present new challenges for educational leaders. Third, the research in the field has also brought changes in the field. It follows that the leadership has an impact on school effectiveness and student achievement by  directing the movement of people and processes to achieve organizational goals (Leithwood and Reihl, 2003).

The basic assumption is that the ability to create a comprehensive, deep and enduring change lies mainly in the hands of educators. Teacher leadership is a means for greater implementation of democratic principles and partnership, resulting in increased potential for organizational change and improving the ability of schools.  Smylie, Conley & Marks (2002) also argue that leadership by teachers may be a means to revitalize their teaching and their interactions with colleagues in ways that increase learning and the school’s ability to adapt and improve. In addition, teacher leadership is most valuable as a means of promoting the professional development of teachers.

Sarason and Fullan also agree that teachers are key to leading a successful educational renewal process (Sarason, 1995; Fullan, 2006).  Teachers’ support in vital support for bringing change and innovation to the schools; for this reason, their training is an essential part of implementing change. Furthermore, an absence of proper training can intensify teachers’ opposition to change and undermine the process of change and renewal. In fact, studies indicate that teachers show resistance to changes and innovations for a variety of reasons, such as failed attempts they have experienced in the past, lack of appropriate remuneration, lack of clarity regarding the nature of changes, mixed messages, fear of the unknown, or factors motivated by the self-interests  of various power groups (Fullan, 2006).  Most of the studies cite the need for teachers to promote and implement changes that they themselves have not initiated, but which have been dictated from on high.

It is both possible and recommended that education leadership training be initiated in the early stages of teacher training and teacher qualification certificate studies. Thus, the teacher will develop and internalize the role of the educator as not only an expert in the field of knowledge and teaching methods, but also as an educator who is the initiator of change and actively leads in the educational and social system. In addition, students will have the opportunity to experience the initiation of change in the relatively sheltered college setting, which enables and supports the learning process. This approach is supported by the “situated leadership” approach, which focuses on the study of behaviors of a leader rather than his/her qualities. According to this approach, leadership skills can be acquired by anyone at the end of a process that shapes the leader (Oakland & Falkenberg, 1996). As a result,  it is the opportunities and situations in one's life that determine the degree of leadership skills developed in one’s lifetime (Leadbeater, Marshall & Banister, 2006).

The available literature often addresses the in-service development of teachers' educational leadership. Here, I propose a model for the development of educational leadership in the pre-service training stages.

The research question, therefore, is what are the desired components of a training model for developing educational leadership  among the students in the excellent students’ program?

Darling¬-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. Elementary School Journal, 96, 87¬106. Frees, M. & Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative: An Active Performance Concept for Work in the 21st Century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23:133-187 Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7 (3), 113-122. Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discoveryof Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Company, Hawthorne, NY. Leadbeater, B., Marshall, A., & Banister, E. (2007, April). Building Strengths through Practice-Research-Policy Collaborations. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16(2), 515-532. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Parker, S. K. (2000). From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review49(3):447-469. Smylie M. A., Conley S., & Marks H. (2002). Exploring New Approaches to Teacher Leadership for School Improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.) the educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162¬-188). University of Chicago Press. Sarason, S. B. (1995). The school culture and processes of change. In Sarson, S,B. School change - The development of a point of view (pp.65-84). Teacher College. .Columbia University, New York. Oakland, T., Falkenberg, B. A., & Oakland, C. (1996). Assessment of leadership in children, youth, and adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (3), 138-146.. Rodgers, C. and Scott. K. (2008). Development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. (3 rd ed.). In Cochran-Smith, S. ,Feiman-Nemser, S.& Mcintyre, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, (pp. 732-755). NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: The Association of teacher Educators.