ISLLC Standards and School Leadership: Who’s Leading This Band



|ISLLC Standards and School Leadership: Who’s Leading This Band? |

|  |

|  |Paul Pitre |

| |Auburn University |

| | |

| |Wade Smith |

| |Louisiana State University |

|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) standards serve to define expected outcomes and activities for |

|effective school leaders. As such, the standards provide a comprehensive overview of leadership in our nation’s schools and |

|serve as important referents for measuring school improvement and effectiveness. This article examines the centrist perspective |

|of the standards, where the principal is viewed as the leader, posits reasons why the centrist view of the principalship is |

|offered, and argues that this centrist notion of the leader is likely to encourage the under utilization of the collective human|

|capitol available to a school and ultimately stifle school improvement efforts. |

|  |

|  |

|[pic] |

|Executive Summary |

|[pic] |

|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) standards were intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue on K-12|

|leadership and a set of behavioral outcomes that school leaders can use to bring about substantive and sustained school |

|improvement.  But not only have the standards sparked dialogue, they have also fueled some debate.  Claims that the standards |

|lack an epistemological base have been answered with the argument that the students were only meant to represent a framework for|

|leadership in schools based on research and practice. |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate. They were also meant to enhance standards for the |

|practice of school leadership. Each standard is defined by subsets of indicators for expected performance.  Collectively, the |

|standards are intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes for effective school leaders.  |

|  |

|ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN ISLLC STANDARDS |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards have a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an educational leader.  Though the need for |

|collaborative processes to create desired educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of |

|ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider Standard 1, where the school administrator |

|facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported |

|by the school community.  The language in this standard suggests that the administrator facilitates collaborative efforts in |

|developing a vision for the school and the school community.  However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 |

|contradicts the focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that the vision and |

|mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students, and community members. Why would the principal, |

|who is viewed as a facilitator of the vision in Standard 1, need to communicate the school vision to a staff that was directly |

|involved in its creation?  In most instances, the principal would not have to be concerned with communicating the vision for a |

|school unless the decision-making process for creating the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a |

|small group of individuals that worked in a somewhat disconnected fashion from the faculty and the community.  A truly |

|collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in the process of communicating the school vision as well.  While a |

|collaborative effort in communicating the school vision to the broader public is a clear sign of stakeholder buy-in, the |

|individual effort of the principal in communicating the school vision to key stakeholders is the first sign of the top-down, |

|bureaucratic, centrist perception of the school leader. |

|  |

|Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset embedded in the ISLLC standards.  For example, |

|under Standard 2 curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise of teachers, and the recommendations of learned |

|societies.  The implication is that curriculum matters are in the purview of the principal. This may be problematic, given the |

|uncertainty with regards to the expertise of principals and whether or not they are suited to have the final word in matters of |

|curriculum.  This matter is of extreme importance in the current high-stakes testing environment that strikes a delicate balance|

|between teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing students for standardized tests on the other.  It is also of particular|

|importance in complex learning environments like high schools, which offer an array of courses.  However, the rationale is |

|logical if each principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision maker for all aspects of their school. |

|  |

|ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS |

|  |

|Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by no means out of favor in today's |

|schools.  For example, the use of prescribed curricula is becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment |

|and often reduces the role of the teacher.  Highly prescribed curricula tend to reduce the role of teachers to the equivalent of|

|assembly line worker in industry.  They are expected to teach what and how they are told. |

|  |

|The examples of the principal having decision authority over the curriculum and the teacher’s role in the prescribed curriculum |

|provide pause for rethinking the centrist perspective of ISLLC Standards.  Further, envisioning a principal as the leader for |

|the myriad of ISLLC performance sub-standards provides even more reason to question the centrist view of ISLLC.  Under ISLLC, |

|the principal is charged with maintaining high visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the larger |

|community.  Another important job of the principal is the constant maintenance and facilitation of a safe, non-threatening |

|learning environment at the school campus.  Each of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation |

|and every one of them is labor intensive. |

|  |

|CONCLUSION |

|  |

|In summary, the positioning of the principal as leader appears to be based more upon pre-established beliefs and norms than the |

|individual organizational needs of schools.  Furthermore, framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide the means |

|for bringing to bear the talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems.  This in itself is enough to give |

|pause to the idea of nesting leadership in principals by virtue of position and authority.  However, other concerns also come |

|into play when principals are charged with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC framework.  The authors of this |

|essay are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are unimportant.  To the contrary, the point is that the standards are so |

|important that vesting their successful implementation and execution in one person (or at best a few people) is dubious. |

|  |

|  |

|[pic] |

|Main Article |

|[pic] |

|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) set of standards for school leaders has received considerable |

|attention as a framework for reconceptualizing leadership in schools.  The ISLLC organization was created in August of 1994 |

|through the collaborative efforts of 24 member states, several foundations, and numerous professional education organizations.  |

|The purpose of ISLLC is to redefine the roles of school administrators through the introduction of a set of common standards, |

|which delineate the expected behavioral outcomes produced by K-12 educational leaders.  Nearly thirty-five states have either |

|adopted or adapted the ISLLC standards and over 25,000 copies of the ISLLC standards have been disseminated (Council of Chief |

|State School Officers, 2002). |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards were intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue about K-12 leadership and a set of behavioral outcomes |

|that school leaders can use to bring about substantive and sustained school improvement.  But not only have the standards |

|sparked dialogue, they have also fueled some debate. English (2000) argued that the ISLLC standards have no epistemological base|

|and thus were not steeped in truth.  In response to English’s claim, Murphy (2000) retorted that the standards were not meant to|

|represent truth, they were only meant to represent a framework for leadership in schools based on research and practice. |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate. They were also meant to “raise the bar for the |

|practice of school leadership” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). Each standard is defined by subsets of indicators|

|for expected performance.  Collectively, the standards are intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes |

|for effective school leaders.  There are six core standards within the ISLLC standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, |

|2002).  The standards articulate that school principals are responsible for: |

|  |

|1.      Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and |

|supported by the school community; |

|2.      Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining school culture and instructional programs conducive to student learning and staff |

|professional growth; |

|3.      Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning |

|environment; |

|4.      Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing |

|community resources; |

|5.      Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and |

|6.      Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. |

|  |

|According to ISLLC's web-site, these standards are reflective of school administrators who: |

|  |

|...often espouse different patterns of beliefs and act differently from the norm in the profession.  Effective school leaders |

|are strong educators, anchoring their work on central issues of learning and teaching and school improvement.  They are moral |

|agents and social advocates for the children and the communities they serve.  Finally, they make strong connections with other |

|people, valuing and caring for others as individuals and as members of the educational community (Council of Chief State School |

|Officers, 2002). |

|  |

|The type of leader described by ISLLC is a visionary.  A visionary is defined as an individual capable of conceptualizing a |

|clear course of action for an organization (Senge, 1994).  This leader is then able to gain buy-in from members of the |

|organization and begin to move those members in a positive direction that will eventually be of direct benefit to the |

|organization and its surrounding community.  It is clear that a primary goal of the ISLLC is to identify standards and |

|dispensations that, when implemented by a visionary leader, initiate a transformational process in schools whereby the core |

|beliefs, norms, and values of the organization are analyzed and restructured in an effort to produce more effective schools.  |

|This is certainly an appropriate goal and an expected outcome of the ISLLC standards.  What might be questionable are some of |

|the theoretical underpinnings of ISLLC standards.  More specifically, the ISLLC standards are focused on traits and behaviors of|

|the leader and are not generally sensitive to the need for developing leadership throughout the school.  If the outcomes |

|delineated by ISLLC are important (and they assuredly are), then it is also important to analyze the assumptions related to how |

|these outcomes might be realized to determine if the assumptions are correct. |

|  |

|ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN THE ISLLC STANDARDS |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards place a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an educational leader.  Though the need for |

|collaborative processes to create desired educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of |

|ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider Standard 1, where the school administrator |

|facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported |

|by the school community.  The language in this standard suggests that the administrator facilitates collaborative efforts in |

|developing a vision for the school and the school community.  However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 |

|contradicts the focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that the vision and |

|mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students, and community members (Council of Chief State |

|School Officers, 2002. Standard 1, Performance Indicator 1).  Why would the principal, who is viewed as a facilitator of the |

|vision in Standard 1, need to communicate the school vision to a staff directly involved in its creation?  In most instances, |

|the principal would not have to be concerned with communicating the vision for a school unless the decision-making process for |

|creating the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a small group of individuals that worked in a |

|somewhat disconnected fashion from the faculty and the community.  A truly collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in |

|the process of communicating the school vision.  While a collaborative effort in communicating the school vision to the broader |

|public is a clear sign of stakeholder buy-in, the individual effort of the principal in communicating the school vision to key |

|stakeholders is the first sign of the top-down, bureaucratic, centrist perception of the school leader. |

|  |

|Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset embedded in the ISLLC standards.  For example, |

|under Standard 2 (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002), curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise of |

|teachers, and the recommendations of learned societies.  The implication is that curriculum matters are the purview of the |

|principal. This may be problematic, given the uncertainty with regards to the expertise of principals and whether or not they |

|are suited to have the final word in matters of curriculum.  This matter is of extreme importance in the current high-stakes |

|testing environment that strikes a delicate balance between teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing students for |

|standardized tests on the other.  It is also of particular importance in complex learning environments like high schools, which |

|offer an array of courses.  However, the rationale is logical if each principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision |

|maker for all aspects of their school. |

|  |

|A careful reading of the ISLLC standards, performances, and outcomes reveals a strong dependency upon the principal’s leadership|

|in a variety of areas within and outside the school setting.  The standards do not clearly vest leadership at any other level of|

|the school.  This traditional, bureaucratic orientation suggests that leadership within schools should be viewed primarily as |

|centrist, top-down, and essentially hierarchical in its function (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979).  From this perspective,|

|final decision power is vested in an individual or a small group of individuals by virtue of their position in an organization's|

|hierarchical structure.  Nearly twenty years ago Immegart (1988) questioned the viability of this model for leadership and |

|called for development of leadership that moved beyond focusing upon the activities or attributes of the leader.  Even so, it |

|seems as though the leader centrist view of the principal’s role is still the norm for schools. |

|  |

|RATIONALE FOR VESTING POWER IN THE PRINCIPAL |

|  |

|At least three possibilities come to mind to justify the centrist leadership assumptions nested in the ISLLC standards.  First, |

|separation of schools into leaders and followers may be based upon the belief that work and work standards are best determined |

|by those individuals considered to have higher rank and more theoretical knowledge (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979).  |

|Second, removing teachers from the ultimate responsibility of curriculum decisions may be a means for freeing them from |

|burdensome administrative tasks while still allowing for their input.  Finally, a third possibility might be that sometimes |

|individuals are placed in leadership roles within an organization based on their status within the hierarchical structure even |

|though other organizational members may possess similar levels of skill.  Each of these perspectives is discussed below from the|

|context of the principal having final purview over matters of instruction as delineated by the ISSLC standards. |

|  |

|Possibility 1: Leaders and Followers |

|  |

|Using an example from industry and the bureaucratic model suggested by the ISLLC standards, line managers (e.g., structural |

|engineers), by virtue of their status in a hierarchy, would make most important decisions, which would then be implemented by |

|craftsmen (e.g., ironworkers).  In this example it is true that the engineer possesses knowledge that an ordinary field worker |

|would not be expected to possess.  Therefore, it is reasonable for the engineer to assume the role of leader in a manner |

|consistent with the underpinnings of the ISLLC document.  However, unlike the engineer in the previous example, it is suspect to|

|assume that school administrators possess a unique body of knowledge in matters of curriculum.  In fact, the opposite may be |

|true with teachers having a fuller understanding of  key issues and decisions involving curriculum that impact the quality of |

|teaching and learning in a school. |

|  |

|Possibility 2: Free Teachers from Unnecessary Tasks |

|  |

|There is certainly merit in trying to insulate teachers from activities unrelated to instruction.  However, the belief that |

|principals should have the final decision on matters of curriculum at a school does not seem to be congruent with this aim.  |

|Teachers are the only school-based personnel most likely to see—or experience—consequences of leadership decisions regarding |

|curriculum, whether on a day-to-day or a general programmatic basis.  Excluding teachers from a framework for leadership might |

|be seen as an expedient way to free teachers up from organizational encumbrances and allow them to focus on teaching and |

|learning.  Yet, as noted earlier, the very practice of teaching and learning is the area where teachers would be expected to |

|have considerable expertise.  The notion of vesting final authority in one person over what has to that point been a |

|collaborative process is now losing favor in other work environments such as business and industry (House, 1998). |

|  |

|Possibility 3: Only One Leader Is Needed |

|  |

|This possibility can be seen in other work settings. For example, a conductor assumes the role of the leader of an orchestra |

|because the nature of the work only requires one leader even though many of the musicians may have similar (or perhaps higher) |

|abilities to read music, understand nuances of the music, and coordinate the efforts of individual orchestra members.  Extending|

|the orchestral analogy to school leadership has been attempted (Hurley, 1999; Iwanicki, 1999).  However, it does not appear to |

|be a good fit for conceptualizing leadership for schools because principals rarely “conduct” their orchestra (i.e., the faculty)|

|since schools have very few group performances. With the possible exception of the occasional faculty meeting, faculty members |

|are used to solo performances in the classroom and, generally, get very little direction from the principal—beyond the |

|occasional teacher evaluation. The conductor model of leadership may be a proper way to lead a classical orchestra, but it is a |

|questionable way to organize and lead a school.  |

|  |

|IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSICAL LEADERSHIP IN GENERAL |

|  |

|Although the classical orchestral model of leadership may not be a good conceptual fit for school leadership, it does contain |

|many of the assumed norms found in schools today.  In orchestras, information flows from the top-down (from the composer to the |

|conductor to the musicians).  The genesis of the music's structure or master plan is the composer.  Once the music is composed, |

|it is the conductor's job to ensure that the orchestra provides a true and faithful rendition of the composer's work.  The score|

|acts like a blueprint, giving instructions to the conductor as to what the composer has created.  Each orchestral member is |

|given pieces of the score and is responsible for executing their specific part of the composition.  Their efforts are monitored |

|and refined by the conductor, the leader who is entrusted with the master blueprint for the musical performance.  Precision and |

|fidelity are primary to the orchestra's mission.  A classical orchestral performance is one where the essence of the composer's |

|master plan is captured, decoded, and executed precisely by the musicians while the conductor oversees and attunes the effort. |

|  |

|The classical model for leadership has much in common with the way policy is created and implemented in schools.  Boards of |

|education or legislative bodies create policy (scores) that are passed down to school-based administrators.  The administrators |

|act as conductors and are charged with the oversight of the faithful replication of the policy.  Extending the analogy, teachers|

|fulfill the role of musicians by taking the policy/score and working to ensure its faithful replication.  Such an organization |

|for leadership in schools assumes several things.  It assumes that outcomes are predictable and that the master plan for the |

|outcome is best generated from outside the organization (or at least distinct from those responsible for the plan's |

|implementation).  Once policy is set, there is little opportunity to deviate and if there is any deviation (such as making |

|decisions about curriculum) then it is only natural that the conductor’s view (i.e., the principal’s view) would supersede those|

|of the orchestra (teachers). |

|  |

|Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by no means out of favor in today's |

|schools.  For example, the use of prescribed curricula is becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment |

|and often reduces the teacher's role to being little more than score readers (Smagorinsky, Lakly, and Star Johnson, 2002).  From|

|the orchestra analogy, highly prescribed curricula tend to reduce teachers to third chair orchestra members who only perform |

|what and how they are told. |

|  |

|In summary, the positioning of the principal as leader appears to be based more upon pre-established beliefs and norms than the |

|organizational needs of schools.  Furthermore, framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide means for bringing to |

|bear the talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems.  This in itself is enough to give pause to the idea |

|of nesting leadership in principals by virtue of position and authority.  However, other concerns also come into play when |

|principals are charged with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC framework. |

|  |

|CAVEATS FOR THE ISLLC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL |

|  |

|Assuming, for the sake of argument, that principals should operate from a centrist perspective still requires a concession from |

|the proponents:  namely, that the demands placed upon an ISLLC-driven administrator are likely to be difficult for one person to|

|perform.  This point is driven home by even a cursory review of the standards.   For example, the six ISLLC standards contain |

|within them approximately 100 performance sub-standards, some of which are part of labor-intense, ongoing processes.  The single|

|example of the principal having the final decision over curriculum matters provides pause for rethinking the centrist |

|perspective of the ISLLC.  Envisioning a principal as the leader for the myriad of sub-standards provides even more reason to |

|question the centrist view of ISLLC. |

|  |

|Currently, many principals are expected to be actively engaged in a plenitude of professional activities such as: |

|  |

|·        School improvement efforts; |

|·        Promoting a culture of high expectations for self, students, and staff; |

|·        Organizing and implementing student and staff development; |

|·        Policy advocacy; |

|·        Oversight of the school plant facility; and |

|·        Management of school budgets. |

|  |

|All of these activities are quite time-intensive, and in the midst of these activities the administrator still needs to find |

|time to recognize, study, and apply emerging trends in instruction and the way schools operate.  Furthermore, the principal is |

|charged with maintaining high visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the larger community.  Finally, |

|another important job of the principal is the constant maintenance and facilitation of a safe, non-threatening learning |

|environment at the school campus.  Each of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation, and |

|every one of them is labor intensive. For example, the evolving role of the principal as policy advocate requires education |

|leaders to promote the success of schools through active participation in, and knowledge of, policy-making processes (Pitre, |

|Reed, Ledbetter, 2003). The policy advocate role of the principal is also imbedded in the ISLLC Standards. |

|  |

|As stated from the outset, we are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are unimportant.  To the contrary, the point is that the |

|standards are so important that vesting their successful implementation and execution in one person (or at best a few people) is|

|dubious.  If the leader-centrist perspective for these standards is to be maintained then it may be necessary, as an ordinary |

|task, to identify principals and principal candidates with extraordinary talents.  Given the emerging and growing trend of a |

|principal shortage throughout the nation, identifying an extraordinary candidate for each and every principalship is unlikely |

|(Hughes, 1999).  In fact, as the principalship becomes more demanding and accountability mandates more onerous, there is an |

|increasing likelihood that the administrator who is adept at psychology, time management, motivation, learning theory, safety |

|management, school community relations, public speaking, school law, and finance, etc., and is willing to accept the job's |

|responsibility for its remuneration will become an even rarer find.  If school improvement is contingent upon principals |

|performing extraordinary tasks as an ordinary occurrence, then the realization of the goals and objectives of the ISLLC and |

|other school improvement models are at risk.  And, if a school is fortunate to find themselves with the type of person who can |

|successfully manage all the ISLLC performance standards, stakeholders must wonder how long the school’s level of performance can|

|be maintained when the principal moves on. |

|  |

|SUMMARY |

|  |

|The ISLLC standards provide a comprehensive analysis and understanding of behavior associated with effective schools.  However, |

|our view is that the standards fail to adequately utilize the human and social capital available within schools.  Additionally, |

|the centrist framework for the standards unnecessarily pictures the principal as primarily responsible for a myriad of tasks |

|that could and should be rethought in terms of school leadership rather than from the perspective of the school leader. |

|  |

|We believe the first step in rethinking the perspective of the ISLLC standards is the identification of potential limitations |

|inherent in current thinking.  We have attempted to make an argument that the ISLLC standards are unnecessarily overly reliant |

|upon principals as the leader of their respective schools.  If we have made our case, then it is also incumbent to begin to |

|rethink how the standards might be revisited from other theoretical perspectives.  This is a subject for further consideration |

|and ongoing discussion. |

|  |

|REFERENCES |

| |

|Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T.M (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings. |

|  |

|Council of Chief State School Officers (2002, June 10). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards For School |

|Leaders. Retrieved October 7, 2002, from |

|  |

|English, F.W. (2000) Psssssst. What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required to be accepted on faith and enforced |

|by authority? [Answer: A religion, AKA the ISLLC Standards]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2) 159-167 |

| |

|House, E. (1998). Schools for sale: why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools and what will. New York: Teachers|

|College Press. |

| |

|Hughes, L.W. (Ed.) (1999). Principals as leaders (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. |

| |

|Hurley, C. (1999). A response to Bryan Brent. Newsletter of the Teaching in Educational Administration Special Interest Group |

|of the American Educational Research Association, 6(1), 4-5. |

| |

|Iwanicki, E. (1999). ISSLC standards and assessment in the context of school leadership reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation|

|in Education, 13(3), 283-294. |

| |

|Immegart, G. L. (1988). Leadership and leader behavior. In N. Boyan (ed.). Handbook of research on educational administration. |

|(pp. 259 – 277). New York: Longman Inc. |

| |

|Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. |

| |

|Murphy, J. (2000). A response to English. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4) 411-414. |

| |

|Pitre, P. E., Reed, C., and Ledbetter, C. (2003) Collaborative Policy Research: Preparing Educational Leaders for Advocacy. |

|Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration 2003 Yearbook, 55-60 |

| |

|Senge, P. M. (1994) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. |

| |

|Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A. and Star Johnson, T. (2002, April 1) Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach|

|within a prescribed curriculum. English Education. 34(3), 187-213 |

|  |

Retrieved October 21, 2004 from:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download