University-based leadership preparation programs no longer enjoy a near monopoly on the right to prepare school principals and other administrative leaders, and now compete with a growing number of alternative providers. This article utilizes the new institutionalism literature to analyze this shift. Practitioners and policymakers demanded reforms beginning in the 1980s. Two alternative state responses are discussed--increased regulation alongside deregulation. University-based providers have been weakened by value disagreements, inability to monitor quality, and weak research on program effectiveness. Strategies are discussed for creating a market of providers that is more strongly regulated around quality. (Contains 6 footnotes.)