The Changing Face of Leadership Preparation.

Hope in the power of six standards to produce administrators fit for contemporary schoolhouse challenges

The problem with educational leadership preparation programs today is that they are driven by neither education nor leadership.

At a fundamental level, school administration is being reshaped by forces in the environment that, regardless of the internal health of the profession, demand that we rethink the business of school leadership.

Programs that prepare our school leaders are evolving to address the fact that the economic, social and political environments surrounding schools are undergoing dramatic changes. The emergence of the global economy, the changing face of society and a heightened interest in the political world with market solutions to the nation's problems have important implications for our schools and for the education of the superintendents and principals who lead them.

Under Fire

A good deal of internal soul searching also has anchored calls for the reform of school administration. These concerns are centered on the knowledge base supporting the profession and the methods and procedures used to educate school leaders.

On the first front, critics have attacked school administrator preparation programs for focusing on the academic dimensions of the profession to the near exclusion of actual practice. They also have lambasted programs for ignoring the ethical and moral dimensions of the job.

Analysts have assailed preparation programs for superintendents for their nearly exclusive focus on management issues and academic disciplines such as sociology and psychology and an almost total absence of anything to do with education. One would expect preparation programs to promote an understanding of our best knowledge about learning, knowledge of curriculum standards, and knowledge of whole school improvement, for example.

Turning to the methods used to educate school leaders, nearly every program component has been found wanting in the past decade. Quality leaders are not actively recruited and selection standards are low. Program content is often irrelevant, connected neither to the central mission of schooling nor to the practice of leadership. Instruction is dull and the faculty members are only marginally more knowledgeable than their students. Standards of performance are often conspicuous by their absence.

Repouring the Base

It is probably fair to argue that the foundations of educational administration, if not actually being repoured, are undergoing important changes. Particularly noteworthy have been the efforts to reshape the definition of school administration as a profession and to redefine educational administration as an area of study.

On the first issue, some agreement exists that the conception of the school administrator's role is being reconstructed around central ideals of leadership. At the most basic level, this has meant a movement away from a century-long preoccupation with management ideology and with the dominant metaphor of superintendent as manager.

During the first half of the 20th century, business had exerted considerable influence over preparation programs for school administrators. Pre-service education for school executives stressed the technical and mechanical aspects of administration, specific and immediate tasks and the practical dimensions of the job. Preparation was highly technical; little thought was given to the theoretical underpinnings of the work of superintendents and principals.

The predominant trend between 1950 and 1985 was the infusion of content from the social sciences into preparation programs. The infrastructure for this activity was the expansion of the conceptual and theoretical knowledge base of the profession through the development of a science of administration. This was a movement intended to produce a foundation of scientifically supported knowledge in educational administration in place of the seat-of-the-pants literature already in place. It also represented a trend away from technique-oriented substance based upon practical experience and toward theory-oriented substance based on disciplines outside education.

Reculturing the Field

Today, education leadership is being recast with materials from the intellectual and moral domains of the profession. A key element of this emerging vision is a deeper understanding of the centrality of learning, teaching and school improvement within the role of the school administrator--a shift in focus from educational administration as management to educational administration primarily concerned with teaching and learning.

Although other qualities of this new school administrator are less clear, the literature does provide clues about what they might be:

* an understanding of caring and humanistic concerns as a key to effective leadership;

* knowledge of the transformational and change dynamics of the superintendency;

* an appreciation of the collegial and collaborative foundations of school administration; and

* an emphasis on the ethical and reflective dimensions of leadership.

This vision of the new education leader was captured in the "Standards for School Leaders," developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium--a consortium of more than 30 states and all the major professional organizations in the area of school administration, including AASA, NASSP and NAESP (see related story, page 17). The consortium's standards provide the DNA for reculturing the profession of school administration. They also provide a platform for the reconstitution of leadership preparation programs and for certification and recertification of school leaders.

The states that either have adopted or adapted the ISLLC standards, such as North Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana, are in different stages of implementing them to reform educational leadership and are basing their standards for licensure of school administrators on the ISSLC standards.

Also on the state level, professional development programs, such as those run by the Ohio Principals Leadership Academy and the Alabama Council of School Administration and Supervision, grounded their professional development program on the standards. Even private entrepreneurial groups are gearing their professional development offerings toward addressing the ISLLC standards. Of course, these programs are designed to help those already in the profession.

University administrator preparation programs also are rebuilding themselves around the standards, as are professional development programs at the district and education association level. The National Association of Secondary School Principals, for example, recently revamped its long-established leadership assessment and development program to link targeted skills to the ISLLC standards. The National Association of Elementary School Principals offers leadership workshops for its members based on the standards.

Several states, including Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina, are requiring their university preparation programs for superintendents and principals to transform themselves around the standards. Some states are embedding the standards in licensure requirements and evaluation of superintendents.

Joe Schneider, executive secretary of the National Policy Board for Educational Leadership, believes the ISLLC standards are beginning to change the way departments of educational administration train future school leaders. And within a year, he predicts, all departments of educational administration that want national recognition by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education will be showcasing the ISLLC standards.

In recent years, Iowa State University has developed six new courses that reflect the six ISLLC standards rather than the traditional management and academic disciplines. Courses at Delta State University and Southern Mississippi and Central Arkansas University have overhauled their educational administration courses to reflect a standards-based curriculum. The University of Maryland at College Park and the College of William and Mary have taken similar actions.

Schneider's policy board, which is housed at AASA, has revised the standards by which NCATE reviews departments of educational administration. The newly developed NCATE standards closely resemble ISLLC standards. "An increased focus on instructional leadership has been long overdue in administrator-training programs," says Schneider, and "ISLLC has become the impetus for that change."

Great Hope

Over the past two decades, much has changed in the educational leadership profession and much has changed in the programs that prepare education leaders. Each initiative tends to support and play out the thinking of the day.

The current trend toward standards has found its way into administrator preparation programs and it is with great hope that we look to the efforts of such initiatives as the ISLLC standards to strengthen the profession and focus administrator preparation programs on those areas that lead to effective leadership and student achievement.

Joseph Murphy is the Flesher Professor of Education of Ohio State University 

Six Standards for School Leadership

Thirty-five states have adopted standards for the professional practice of school leaders developed in 1996 by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.

The document, "Standards for School Leaders," can be ordered for $10 from the Council of Chief State School Officers at www.ccsso.org or by calling 202-336-7005.

Here are the six standards.

Standard 1

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.

Standard 2

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard 3

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard 4

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Standard 5

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

Standard 6

A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.