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.

Executive Summary

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.

Main Article

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 http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=87

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: http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp? ContentID=11382