Educators have long operated under the assumption that principals have a significant effect on schools as well as the teachers who work there. These claims have been supported through a number of recent studies. According to these studies, principals have the potential to influence conditions within schools, and their influence can reach as far as actual student outcomes. Further, Orr and Orphanos (2007) determined that leadership preparation can significantly influence the way leaders lead. Therefore, universities' innovative leadership preparation programs can influence student outcomes as well. Leadership programs across the country are changing to reflect the rhetoric of current NCLB reform narratives. However, this shift is not only problematic for the preparation of future leaders, but, by virtue of the fact that these leaders will have such an influence on schools, the changes will also have a damaging effect on teachers and, ultimately, on the kinds of authentic outcomes one should seek for students. Therefore, stakeholders in leadership preparation are actually instrumental in perpetuating the problems of current prescribed reforms. Said differently, by eschewing theory within leadership preparation programs and by tethering themselves to the pole of use (when said use is exclusively raising test scores), this author contends that stakeholders in leadership preparation enslave themselves--and the students they serve--to a narrow and misguided purpose for schools.