|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 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