STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: CONSIDERING HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. __________________________________________ George Stanley Cox Certification of Approval: _______________________________ ______________________________ Margaret E. Ross Cynthia J. Reed, Chair Associate Professor Associate Professor Educational Foundations, Leadership Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology and Technology ________________________________ ______________________________ William A. Spencer Joe F. Pittman Professor Interim Dean Educational Foundations, Leadership Graduate School and Technology STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: CONSIDERING HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES George Stanley Cox A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama August 4, 2007 iii STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: CONSIDERING HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES George Stanley Cox Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon the request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. _____________________________________ Signature of Author ____________________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA George Stanley Cox, son of George H. and Annette (Wilson) Cox, was born September 8, 1962, in Montgomery, Alabama. He graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in 1980. He graduated from Auburn University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology in August 1984. He graduated from Auburn University in Montgomery with a Bachelor of Science degree in education in December 1986. In June 1989, after working as a mathematics teacher for two years, he entered the graduate school, Troy University ? Montgomery. He graduated with a Masters of Education degree in Secondary Mathematics Education in August 1991 and certification in Educational Leadership in August 1992. After working six years as a mathematics teacher he became an assistant principal at Brewbaker Junior High School. In August 1994 he was appointed principal of Georgia Washington Junior High School. He graduated from Auburn University in Montgomery with an Educational Specialist degree in Educational Leadership in May 1997. In August 1997 he was appoint principal of Baldwin Academics and Arts Magnet School. In October 2000 he was appointed principal of Brewbaker Technology Magnet High School. In March 2002 he was appointed principal of Opelika High School. He married Kelly Cox, daughter of Roger and Patricia (Helms) Broom on January 16, 1993. They have two children, Wilson and Parker. v DISSERTATION ABSTRACT STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: CONSIDERING HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES George Stanley Cox Doctor of Education, August 4, 2007 Ed.S., Auburn University Montgomery, 1997 M.S., Troy University Montgomery, 1992 B.S., Auburn University Montgomery, 1986 B.A., Auburn University, 1984 213 Typed Pages Directed by Cynthia J. Reed Since their publication, standards for school leaders have influenced policy action at the national, state, and local levels. Much of the initial work in administrative standards implementation has taken place in the professional preparation programs at the graduate level. Coursework and practicum experiences for future school leaders are beginning to reflect a standards-based emphasis. As a result, some claim future candidates for leadership roles are prepared to meet the standards-based expectations of their job. Many practicing school leaders are the product of administrative training programs that predate the standards movement (IEL, 2000), so their leadership style and practice may be less compatible with the expectations inherent in the new administrative standards. vi While many states have had standards for administrative certification, now there are new standards with a greater emphasis on instructional leadership, at least in Alabama and other SREB influenced states. Given the mandated influence of standards on certification requirements, practicing school leaders need to give serious consideration to administrative standards as a component of their soon-to-be-defined re-certification plan. If administrative standards are to serve as the template of the characteristics for effective school leaders for the 21 st century, what role, and/or influence have national organizations played as states developed their administrative standards? Because much attention on professional standards has been focused on pre-service programs, a second purpose of this study seeks to determine the commonalities of administrative standards between southeastern states. This study includes three manuscripts that provide an in-depth exploration of the study?s research questions. Conclusions and recommendations based on the research findings are included with each manuscript. The first manuscript, School Leaders: Historical and Political Influences, explores historical and political influences on standards for school leaders. The second manuscript, Standards for School Leaders: The Role of Professional Organizations explores the commonalities of standards for school leaders among southeastern states and national educational organizations. The third manuscript, Standards for Alabama School Leaders: Historical and Political Influences, explores the role and/or influence national educational organizations played as the State of Alabama developed its standards for school leaders. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to offer my thanks to the members of my committee who supported my through this process. I am forever indebted to Dr. Cynthia Reed, Dr. Margaret Ross, and Dr. William Spencer for their support. Thank you all for your help. Several of my classmates at Auburn University have turned into great friends. I especially thank Andre Harrison, Aaron Milner, and Shakela Johnson-Ford. I could not have survived this process without you. Sincere thanks are also offered to my fellow administrators of Opelika High School and the central office staff of Opelika City Schools. I could not have asked for a more cooperative and supportive group of co-workers. I appreciate the sacrifices my fellow administrators ? Jason Bryant, Charles Farmer, Jan Funderburk, and Shakela Johnson-Ford ? made as I completed this process. Dr. Mark Neighbors, Dr. Phil Raley, Dr. Ann Wyatt, and Mrs. Susan Bruce have also constantly offered their encouragement, and I appreciate their concern for my success. Lastly, I owe the greatest amount of gratitude to my wife, Kelly, and my children, Wilson and Parker. I spent many nights away from home while Kelly was helping with homework and taking children to ball practice and dance class. Without her support I would have never completed this process. Thank you and I love you. Wilson and Parker, I cannot wait to spend more time with you. I love both of you. viii Style manual used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5 th ed. (2001), Washington, DC. Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2000 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 The Purpose of the Study.........................................................................................5 Research Questions..................................................................................................7 Significance of the Study.........................................................................................8 Methodology..........................................................................................................12 Data Collection ......................................................................................................12 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................13 Overview of the Study ...........................................................................................13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................................15 Introduction............................................................................................................15 Changing Role of the School Principal..................................................................15 Beginning of Standards for School Leaders ..........................................................18 Preparation of School Leaders...............................................................................24 Summary................................................................................................................29 III. STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCES .......................................................................................................31 Abstract...................................................................................................................31 Introduction.............................................................................................................33 Methodology...........................................................................................................34 The History of Preparing School Leaders...............................................................35 1947 ? 1985.......................................................................................................39 1986 ? 2007.......................................................................................................41 History and Development of ELCC Standards.......................................................44 Revision Process ..............................................................................................47 x History and Development of ISLLC Standards.......................................................49 Implications for School Leaders .......................................................................................51 Table 1: Major Events in Administration Preparation..............................................54 IV. STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS...............................................................................................57 Abstract..................................................................................................................57 Introduction............................................................................................................59 Background............................................................................................................60 How Did We Get Here?.........................................................................................62 What Knowledge Base Should the Curriculum Reflect?.......................................65 Setting Standards for Principals.............................................................................71 Development of ISLLC Standards.........................................................................73 Development of ELCC Standards..........................................................................74 Conclusion .............................................................................................................76 Figure 1: Major Professional Organizations and Their Role in Developing ISLLC Standards................................................................................................................79 V. STANDARDS FOR ALABAMA SCHOOL LEADERS: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCES .................................................................................80 Abstract...................................................................................................................80 Introduction.............................................................................................................83 Evolution of Alabama?s Approach to School Leadership Reform .........................90 Development of Alabama?s Standards....................................................................92 The Eight-Step Process...............................................................................93 Task Force One: Standards for Preparing and Developing Principals as Instructional Leaders.................................................................................102 Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders......................................................103 Standard 1: Planning for Continuous Improvement ................................103 Rationale ......................................................................................103 Standard .......................................................................................104 Key Indicators..............................................................................104 Standard 2: Teaching and Learning ........................................................105 xi Rationale ......................................................................................105 Standard .......................................................................................106 Key Indicators..............................................................................106 Standard 3: Human Resources Development ..........................................107 Rationale ......................................................................................107 Standard .......................................................................................108 Key Indicators..............................................................................108 Standard 4: Diversity ..............................................................................109 Rationale ......................................................................................109 Standard .......................................................................................110 Key Indicators..............................................................................110 Standard 5: Community and Stakeholders Relationships........................111 Rationale ......................................................................................111 Standard .......................................................................................112 Key Indicators..............................................................................112 Standard 6: Technology ..........................................................................112 Rationale ......................................................................................112 Standard .......................................................................................113 Key Indicators..............................................................................113 Standard 7: Management of the Learning Organization.........................114 Rationale ......................................................................................114 Standard .......................................................................................115 Key Indicators..............................................................................115 xii Standard 8: Ethics ...................................................................................116 Rationale ......................................................................................116 Standard .......................................................................................116 Key Indicators..............................................................................116 Summary............................................................................................................. 117 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................120 Introduction..........................................................................................................120 Methods and Procedures......................................................................................121 Summary..............................................................................................................122 Conclusions..........................................................................................................122 Recommendations for Policymakers ...................................................................128 Recommendations for Further Study...................................................................130 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................131 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................133 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................153 Appendix A: Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders..............................154 Appendix B: Florida?s Principal Leadership Standards.....................................157 Appendix C: Georgia?s Performance Standards for Leader Candidates ...........160 Appendix D: Kentucky?s Administration Standards for Preparation and Certification .......................................................163 Appendix E: Mississippi?s Standards for School Leaders................................166 Appendix F: North Carolina?s Standards for Principal and Assistant Principal Evaluation .....................................................168 Appendix G: South Carolina?s Standards for School Principals ......................170 Appendix H: Tennessee?s Goals for School Leaders .......................................173 Appendix I: Virginia?s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents...........................................176 Appendix J: West Virginia?s Principal?s Standards..........................................179 Appendix K: Educational Leadership Constituent Council Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership for Principals, Superintendents, Curriculum Directors, and Supervisors...........................................................181 Appendix L: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium xiii Standards for School Leaders ......................................................183 Appendix M: National Association for Elementary School Principals Standards for What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do........................................................................185 Appendix N: National Association of Secondary School Principals Standards for Principals ...............................................................187 Appendix O: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education?s Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education..................190 Appendix P: Southern Regional Education Board?s Standards for School Leaders ......................................................192 1 I. INTRODUCTION Since the mid-1980s, several efforts have been undertaken to define the knowledge base for educational administration and to create standards for use in administration preparation programs. Some critics have attacked school administrator preparation programs for focusing on the academic dimensions of the profession to the near exclusion of actual practice (Murphy, 2001). They also have lambasted programs for ignoring the ethical and moral dimensions of the job (Murphy, 2001). Efforts to define standards have been undertaken chiefly by organizations involved in the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). For example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) identified a detailed set of proficiencies for school leaders (Donmoyer et al., 1995). Moreover, the NAESP created the Professional Development Inventory and professional development activities related to the proficiencies so aspiring, new, or experienced principals could assess their level of competence on the proficiencies and create a professional development plan to strengthen their skills (NAESP, 1997). The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) has also developed a competency inventory for use in the professional development of principals (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). In the mid-1990s, the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) engaged scholars from across the country in defining the knowledge base in educational 2 administration. Although considered a controversial project by many, particularly given the difficulty of delimiting a field of study, it did result in much generative discussion (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). The steering committee for this project included its chairperson, Wayne K. Hoy (Rutgers University), Terry A Astuto (New York University), Patrick B. Forsyth (UCEA), Muriel Mackett (Northern Illinois University), Rodney J. Reed (The Pennsylvania State University), Pedro Reyes (University of Texas, Austin), and Gail T. Schneider (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Close on the heels of the knowledge-base project were the establishment of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and its subsequent development of the ISLLC standards for the professional practice of school leaders. A stated purpose of the ISLLC standards was to provide a clear, organized set of curriculum content and performance standards that could be used to drive the preparation, professional development, and licensure of principals (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). By 2001, 35 states had adopted or adapted the standards for use in reforming educational leadership programs (Jackson & Kelley, 2002), and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) had developed a performance-based assessment, the School Leaders Licensure Assessment, which could be used by states to assess proficiency based on mastery of the ISLLC standards. The School Leaders Licensure Assessment is currently required in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (Educational Testing Service, 2007). The adoption and use of the ISLLC standards has not been limited to the states, however. In 2000, the NPBEA established a working group made up of representatives 3 from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the American Association of School Administrators, NASSP, the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, NAESP, the National Association of School Boards, and UCEA to design performance-based standards for the National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers Education?s (NCATE?s) review of educational leadership programs. These standards, which were officially adopted by NCATE in the spring of 2002 and subsequently implemented by the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) for NCATE accreditation review, are carefully aligned with the ISLLC standards and thus provide a single, unified set of national standards for administrative practice for the preparation of principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002). The newly merged NCATE/ISLLC standards for school leaders require that candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by (a) facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by the school community; (b) promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practices to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plan for staff; (c) managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment; (d) collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources; (e) acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner; (f) understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger 4 political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context; and (g) internship. The internship provides significant opportunities for candidates to synthesize and apply the knowledge and practice while developing the skills identified in Standards a through f through substantial, sustained, standards-based work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by the institution and school district personnel for graduate credit (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002). Some researchers and practitioners believe engaging in efforts to define a knowledge base and standards for preparation and training of administrators is central to efforts to improve the quality of educational administrator preparation programs (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). However, there is controversy surrounding the development and implementation of standards for school leaders. Some calls for reform are centered on the knowledge base supporting the profession and the methods and procedures used to educate school leaders (McDonald, 2005). 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 (Murphy, 2001). Others believe standards such as ISLLC can provide a vehicle for professional discussion about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for the effective administration of educational organizations. Discussions about standards may also provide an opportunity to develop more authentic measures of assessment and closer connections between licensure standards and effective administrative leadership practices (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). 5 The Purpose of the Study As schools change, the role of the principal is impacted. Each of the changes requires the principal either to take on additional responsibilities or to shift priorities. Portin and Shen (1998) refer to these additional duties as ?layered responsibilities.? Tasks become piled upon one another requiring the administrator to devote uneven amounts of time and attention to each one. For school leaders who have became certified over the past twenty years there are varying views about what their primary responsibilities should be, along with varied levels of preparation for meeting those expectations. For the past century, principals essentially functioned as managers addressing such issues as personnel, supply orders, budgets, building safety, and public relations. In addition to these responsibilities, today?s principals must be leaders who focus on improving teaching and student learning (IEL, 2000). The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) (2000) states that many principals feel more comfortable with management roles than with leadership roles because that is where the bulk of their training lies. Portin, Shen, and Williams (1998) point out that in order to meet the new challenges, today?s principals must assume a role more that strikes a balance between leadership and management. The IEL (2000) suggests that many of today?s leaders may not be equipped for these new challenges and responsibilities. Much of their background and experience has prepared them for a management role rather than a leadership role that involves creating conditions for effective teaching and improved student achievement. Lauder (2000) maintains that principal preparation programs have traditionally required evidence that candidates have the ability to learn new information and the will 6 power to comply with the requirements of the program and the strict course schedule. Current practice indicates that the role of the principal is grounded in more than just a broad knowledge base. In addition to a strong knowledge base, today?s principals must also possess the skill to apply that knowledge in the domain of their school and the dispositions to use their knowledge and skill effectively (Lauder 2000). Joseph Murphy (2001) has argued that putting academic knowledge at the center of programs is inevitably self-defeating. ?No matter how effectively professors package and present the knowledge, they (or their students) ultimately face the problem of creating a bridge between theory and practice? (Murphy, 2001, p. 38). Too often, he argues, it turns out to be a "bridge to nowhere" (Murphy, 2001, p. 38). John Daresh (2002) notes that both academic knowledge and practical experience have limitations as well as benefits. Academic knowledge can acquaint candidates with the conceptual foundations of a very complex field and can provide a common language to talk about the problems of practice but is at best a partial sampling of what principals need to know. Field-based knowledge has obvious practical value but is oriented around existing practices rather than reforms that may be needed. In addition, Daresh advocates a role for "personal formation," which is the leader's integration of personal and professional knowledge that provides a moral compass for navigating the complex landscape of practice. Murphy (2001) has recommended recasting preparation around the purposes of leadership. He suggests that leaders can be viewed as moral stewards, as educators, and as community builders (Murphy, 2002). Each of these metaphors could serve as the framework for broad syntheses of ideas and beliefs that would have relevance for both 7 academic knowledge and practice. Similar themes, which have gained wide acceptance among professors and policymakers, are embedded in the standards developed by the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (Lashway, 2003) According to Lashway (2003), standards alone are probably not enough to reshape leadership programs. John Norton (2002) has noted that standards-based redesign is too often "a paper-and-pencil game that requires players to match course titles and content with the adopted higher standards" (Norton, 2002, p. 16). To be most effective, the new standards should lead to a fundamental rethinking of content, delivery, and assessment. The purpose of this study is to investigate how national educational organizations have influenced states as they developed new standards for their school leaders. This study determines the commonalities of states? standards for school administrators and explores the historical and political influences on standards for school leaders. Research Questions 1. What has been the historical and political impetus for standards for school leaders? 2. What are the commonalities of standards for school administrators among southeastern states and national educational organizations? 3. What role and/or influence have national educational organizations played as the State of Alabama developed its standards for school leaders? 8 Significance of the Study School leadership is the key to school improvement (Hess & Kelley, 2003). ?School principals are the front-line managers, the small business executives, and the battlefield commanders charged with leading their team to new levels of effectiveness. In this new era of accountability where school leaders are expected to demonstrate bottom- line results and use data to drive decisions, the skills and knowledge of principals matter more than ever (Farkas, et al, 2003, p. 22). The rise of charter schooling, increasing school choice, and more flexible teacher compensation and hiring have granted thousands of principals new opportunities to exercise discretion and operate with previously unimagined leeway. In this environment, school improvement rests to an unprecedented degree on the quality of school leadership (Hess & Kelly, 2004). Superintendents have made it clear that they hold new and more demanding expectations for principals (Farkas, et al, 2003). Superintendents are searching for principals who are equipped for the challenges and opportunities posed by an era of accountability (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Public Agenda notes that when today?s superintendents ?describe what they are trying to accomplish? they use the words ?accountability, instructional leadership, closing the achievement gap, and teacher quality? (Farkas et al. 2003, p.22). However, principals themselves suggest that they are not fully equipped for all of the challenges they face. For example, just 36% of principals report that tougher scrutiny of teachers is resulting in denied tenure for weak teachers and just 30% that students? assessed performance is being factored into the evaluation of teachers (Farkas et al. 2003, p.21). 9 In this changing context, an array of scholars has asked whether traditional approaches to preparing and licensing principals are sufficient (Elmore 2000; Fordham Foundation, 2003; Hess 2003; Murphy 2001; Tucker, 2003). Leaders of UCEA have asserted ?in order to build programs that support leadership for learning ? we must rethink and revise our practice in several areas? (Young & Kochan 2004, p.121). Theodore Kowalski, an influential scholar of educational administration, has advocated ?substantial reforms in administrator preparation, program accreditation, and state licensing standards? (Kowalski 2004, p. 93) Concerns about the effectiveness of traditional preparation programs have yielded a wide-ranging debate about new approaches to recruiting and preparing leaders. The resulting policy debate features two general camps: those who wish to refine and bolster the existing system of preparation and licensure and those who advocate a move away from licensure and the attendant notions of leadership that hold sway today (Hess & Kelly, 2005). The proponents of conventional preparation have indicated a willingness to compromise, giving rise to modified training programs and blunting the political appetite for rethinking the gate keeping arrangements that regulate who can become, approve, or train future school leaders (Hess & Kelly, 2005). Principals themselves are among the first to agree that they need to be more effectively prepared for their jobs. All but 4% of practicing principals report that on-the- job experiences or guidelines from colleagues has been more helpful in preparing them for their current position than their graduate school studies. In fact, 67% of principals reported ?typical leadership programs in graduate schools of education are out of touch 10 with the realities of what it takes to run today?s school districts? (Farkas et al. 2003, p. 39). A recent four-year study by the president of Teachers College at Columbia University, Arthur Levine (2005), raised the stakes in this debate by harshly assessing the quality of educational administration programs. Based on a survey of practicing principals and education school deans, chairs, faculty, and alumni, as well as case studies of 25 school leadership programs, Levine concluded that ?the majority of [educational administration] programs range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country?s leading universities? (Levin 2005, p. 23). In particular, he found that the typical course of studies required of principal candidates was largely disconnected from the realities of school management, though Levine did not seek to analyze the content of these courses. In light of the Levine analysis, and given the increasing demands on school leaders, the question of what candidates are actually being taught in principal preparation has taken on heightened significance. (Levin 2005) Almost no research systematically documents the content studied in the nation?s principal preparation programs, the instructional focus, or the readings assigned to students. Beyond the 2005 Levine study, recent research and commentary has focused on the need to reshape the principal?s role so that school leaders are more focused on increasing student achievement, driving school improvement, and meeting the challenges of standards-based accountability and charter schools (Gorgan & Andrews 2002; Portin et al. 2003). To date, existing research has not scrutinized the attention devoted to principal preparation. Nicolaides and Gaynor (1992) conducted the only previously published 11 study exploring the content of administrator preparation using course syllabi. The authors analyzed 36 syllabi from doctoral programs at the 37 University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) programs to examine the focus of administrative theory courses and isolated five basic themes: theoretical and historical foundations, process and change, sociopolitical structures, leadership, and culture and symbols. A related effort by Norton and Levan (1987) surveyed UCEA doctoral programs and found that more than 60 percent of content addressed managing personnel, school administration, and technical knowledge of law and finance. Some claim the field of educational leadership has suffered from a general absence of systematic scholarly inquiry (Hess & Kelley, 2003). Leading authorities have pointedly observed that the overall landscape of educational administration research is ?considerably bleaker than most would prefer? (Murphy & Vriesenga 2004, p. 11). In particular, educational administration scholars have termed the body of research on administrator preparation ?scant? (Lashway 2003). For instance, a recent effort to analyze the state of administrator preparation conducted by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation (NCAELP) commissioned six papers which yielded essays on topics like the challenges of reforming administrator preparation (Young et al. 2002), the need to rethink the foundations of leadership preparation (Murphy 2002), promising training programs across the country (Jackson & Kelley 2002), and a ?self-evaluation? for preparation programs (Glasman et al. 2002). While useful, the NCAELP effort did not seek to present systematic data regarding what preparation programs do or what they teach. 12 Methodology A qualitative, historical research design was utilized for this study. Written qualitative data exists in two forms: words or phrases generated by techniques for systematic elicitation and free-flowing texts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). This study used free-flowing texts as its data sources. When analyzing free-flowing texts, there are two types of analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). In one, text is segmented into its most basic meaningful components ? words. In the other, meanings are found in large blocks of text. In this study, the researcher analyzed large blocks of texts. The researcher made judgments about the meanings of contiguous blocks of text. The researcher read line-by- line of each document to identify themes related to the topic being studied. During the line-by-line reading, the researcher marked up collected documents with different colored translucent markers, and wrote his own comments in the margins to reflect the general categories into which he placed the documents. The researcher made notes of the comments that fell under these categories on different-colored sticky notes with each colored note representing a different concept or category. Data Collection Two data sources were used in this study. The first data source included public and archival documents published by state departments of education from southeastern states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. For each of these states the following information was reviewed (a) standards used as a model; (b) year state adopted standards; (c) intended purposes for adopting standards; (d) unintended consequences of adopting standards; (e) 13 process used to select standards; (f) parties involved in the selection process; and (g) parties not involved in the selection process. The second data source consisted of public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations such as Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC), National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). For each of these organizations, the following information was reviewed (a) history of the organization; (b) purpose of the organization; (c) history of involvement in educational administration standards; and (d) espoused standards for school leaders. Data Analysis In accordance with the qualitative data analysis process developed by Denzin and Lincoln (2003), data from documents and other materials were organized, broken down into manageable units, synthesized, organized into themes, and placed in code categories. The documents were hand-coded for key phrases, descriptors, and explanations according to the code categories. Overview of the Study This study is reported in a manuscript format and includes the following sections: Section II, Review of Literature, which provides an overview of related literature pertaining to the topics addressed throughout this study including the historical and political influences for standards for school leaders; the role national and professional 14 organizations played in the development of state standards for school leaders; and the development of standards for Alabama school leaders. Sections III, IV, and V are manuscripts that provide an in-depth exploration of the study?s research questions. Conclusions and recommendations based on the research findings are included with each manuscript. Section III, School Leaders: Historical and Political Influences, explores historical and political influences on standards for school leaders. Section IV, Standards for School Leaders: The Role of Professional Organizations explores the commonalities of standards for school leaders among southeastern states and national educational organizations. Section IV, Standards for Alabama School Leaders: Historical and Political Influences, explores the role and/or influence national educational organizations played as the State of Alabama developed its standards for school leaders. Section VI offers a summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Final sections include a reference list and appendices. The researcher has twenty years of experience as an educator - fourteen of those years as a school administrator. The researcher served in a leadership position in the Governor?s Congress on School Leadership for the State of Alabama. He, along with Dr. Sam Houston, co-chaired the task force that developed Alabama?s Standards for Instructional Leaders, which sparked his interest in the topic of this dissertation. 15 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This section presents a review of literature exploring current research related to the development of standards for school leaders including (1) the changing role of the school principal; (2) the beginning of standards for school leaders; and (3) the preparation of school leaders. Schools nationwide are grappling with serious problems ranging from random outbreaks of violence and crumbling facilities to staffing shortfalls and chronically low academic expectations for students. But, many people believe that a scarcity of capable education leaders ranks among the most severe of the problems facing today?s schools. Without strong leaders, schools have little chance of meeting any other challenge (IEL, 2000). Changing Role of the School Principal Schools are changing (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000). They are transforming in response to various pressures, including parent complaints about the quality of education (Black, 2000), labor market demands for increasingly skilled workers (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000), rapid advances in technology (Doud & Keller, 1998), the growing popularity of public school alternatives such as charter schools (Black, 2000) and advocacy for vouchers for private education (Doud & Keller, 1998). No one can say for 16 certain how the schools of the new century will differ from those of the past century ? but there can be little doubt that these schools will require different forms of leadership. Whatever their disagreements, and there are many, various national and professional organizations agree broadly on two things: First, the top priority of the principalship must be leadership for learning (Kennedy, 2000). Second, the principalship as it currently is constructed ? a middle management position overloaded with responsibilities for basic building operations ? fails to meet this fundamental priority (Kennedy, 2000), instead allowing schools to drift without any clear vision of leadership for learning or providing principals with the skills needed to meet the challenge (Kennedy, 2000). School systems must reinvent the principalship to meet the needs in the 21 st century (IEL, 2000). Being an effective building manager used to be good enough. For the past century, principals mostly were expected to comply with district-level edicts, address personnel issues, order supplies, balance program budgets, keep hallways and playgrounds safe, put out fires that threatened tranquil public relations, and make sure that busing and meal services were operating smoothly. Principals still need to do all of those things. But now they must do more. As studies show the crucial role that principals can play in improving teaching and learning, it is clear that principals today also must serve as leaders for student learning (Bryk, et al, 1998; Brighouse & Woods, 1999; Teske & Schneider, 1999; Day, et al, 2000; Elmore, 2000; Leithwood, 2000; Newman, King, & Young, 2000; Donaldson, 2001; Henchey, 2001; McLaughlin & Talbent, 2001). They must know academic content and pedagogical techniques. They must work with teachers to strengthen teaching and classroom management skills. They must collect, analyze, and use data in ways that fuel 17 excellence. They must rally students, teachers, parents, local health and social services agencies, youth development groups, local businesses, and other community residents and partners around the common goal of raising student performance. And, they must have the leadership skills and knowledge to exercise the autonomy and authority to pursue these strategies (IEL, 2000). Principals must do all these things, but too often, they do not (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Even as communities shine a public spotlight on principals when their schools? tests scores are released and prescribe stiff penalties for many when their schools perform below expectations, current principals find very little in their professional preparation or ongoing professional development to equip them for this new role (Kennedy, 2000). Nor are they supported in this leadership role by their school districts (Kennedy, 2000), which, for decades have expected principals to do little more than follow orders, oversee school staff, and contain conflict (ERS, 1998). So instead, principals mainly stick to what they know, straining to juggle the multiplying demands of running a school in an era of rising expectations, complex student needs, enhanced accountability, expanding diversity, record enrollments, and staff shortfalls (IEL, 2000). The demands placed on principals have changed, but many claim the profession has not changed to meet those demands (ERS, 2000) ? and the tension is starting to show (USDE, 1997). Principals increasingly say the job is simply not ?doable? (Kennedy, 2000). They are retiring younger and younger (USDE, 1997). At the same time, school districts report a shortage of qualified candidates for the job. The need for school administrators will increase by 10 to 20 percent in the next five years according to the United States Department of Education (1997). What those statistics do not illuminate is 18 how few of the candidates facing the challenge will be able to lead the necessary improvements in their schools unless changes are made (IEL, 2000). Of course many of the nation?s 93,200 principals are dedicated, persistent, inspiring, and effective school leaders (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Yet, many are not (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). The reality is that the future of the principalship is in question as legislators, employers, parents, and others call for higher academic standards and greater accountability for academic success. The conflict between the rapidly expanding job demands and a shrinking pool of qualified candidates portends a catastrophe (IEL, 2000). Educational communities around the country have suggested a reinvention of the principalship to enable principals to meet the challenges of the 21 st century, and to guarantee the leaders for student learning that communicates needs to guide their schools and children to success. Beginning of Standards for School Leaders It all started in 1983 with a simple statement: ?Our nation is at risk? (National Commission for Excellence in Education (NCEE), 1983, p. 1). The simplicity of that introductory statement belies the complexity of school reform activity that has evolved over the past 24 years. The Nation at Risk report served as a catalyst for renewed interest in public education across the nation. The issues raised in the report shaped political debate and policy action from the halls of Congress and state legislatures to local school board meeting rooms. Those 24 years of debate and policy action have had direct impact on programs and practices in every aspect of American schooling (NCEE, 1983). 19 Reacting to an ?extensive list? of inadequacies in the education process, the report provided recommendations for content, expectations, time, teaching, and leadership (NCEE, 1983). A Nation at Risk did not mention administrative standards specifically, but the report does assert, ?Principals and superintendents must play a crucial role in developing school and community support for the reforms we propose? (NCEE, 1983, p. 6). A Nation at Risk challenged principals and superintendents to model leadership behaviors to accomplish the proposed reforms for public education. In the 10-year period following the publication of A Nation at Risk, numerous organizations worked to define and refine standards and expectations for educator preparatory program accreditation and professional licensure (Sneeden, 2007). The standards for school leaders developed by these organizations represent a consolidation of administrative standards developed by numerous educational task forces, all seeking to define and improve the skills of school leaders and meet the demands of leadership in schools of the 21 st century. The National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) created the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) to develop the Standards for School Leaders. During 1994-95 representatives from states and professional associations wrote the ISLLC Standards. This effort was supported by grants from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Danforth Foundation. Performance standards (Lashway, 1998) grew out of the accountability movement taking the national spotlight in the mid-1980s. Supported by the conservative agenda of the Reagan administration and catapulted into the national spotlight by the NCEE?s scathing report, A Nation at Risk, standards have become a vehicle for educational policy 20 development stressing accountability as a central theme. A Nation at Risk spawned a series of collaborative ventures among policy workers, educational organizations, and academic institutions focused on the development of professional performance standards that would define the conditions and qualities necessary to reduce the ?risks? as identified in 1983 (DeMary & Palmiero, 2003). In 1987, the CCSSO convened representatives from 17 state education agencies to form the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). INTASC began its work with one guiding premise: ?An effective teacher must be able to integrate content knowledge with pedagogical understanding to assure that all students learn and perform at high levels? (CCSSO, 2000, p. 1). The consortium?s efforts sought to define the core performance standards for all teachers, regardless of subject or grade level. In the introductory letter of the Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue, INTASC Director M. Jean Miller acknowledged the committee?s intended purpose: ?It is chapter one in a long-term effort?The intent of this document, and those which follow, is to stimulate dialogue among stakeholders of the teaching profession about the best thinking of their colleagues regarding what constitutes competent beginning teaching? (INTASC, 1992, p. 2). The INTASC model standards were developed in conjunction with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), which were developed to define advanced certification benchmarks for highly skilled veteran teachers (INTASC, 1992). 21 Building on the conceptual framework of the INTASC standards, the ISLLC convened to develop a performance standards framework for school leaders. The ISLLC standards claim to ?raise the bar for educational leaders to enter and remain in the profession and to reshape concepts of educational leadership? (CCSSO, 1996, p. 1). The ISLLC initiative began in August 1994, fueled by the contributions of 24 member states, a generous foundational grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts, and assistance from the Danforth Foundation and the NPBEA, ISLLC operates under the aegis of the CCSSO. The 24 member states are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, South Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, the following professional associations are affiliated with ISLLC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of Teacher Educators (ATE), NAESP, NASSP, National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), NPBEA, National School Board Association (NSBA), and UCEA (CCSSO, 1996). The six ISLLC standards for school administrators provide specific knowledge, dispositions, and performance expectations that have redefined school leadership (ISLLC, 1996). The standards define a view of school leadership that emphasizes the knowledge and skills of teaching and learning and closely link all leadership behavior to student outcomes. 22 In its 1998 report, Designing and Implementing Standards-Based Accountability, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) cautioned policy workers about the importance of linking standards to decision making (ECS, 1998). In ?Standards for Administrators,? Lashway (1998) reiterated the critical link between leadership standards and educational decision making as intended by the authors of the ECS report: ?The authors make it clear that leadership standards will accomplish little unless school boards, central office, and site administrators are prepared to take concrete steps to using the standards as a basis for decision making? (Lashway, 1998, p. 2). The NPBEA (2002) recently published Instructions to Implement Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership. That report coalesced professional preparation standards of the NCATE, ISLLC, and the ELCC. As with most other documents promoting standards-based leadership models, the NPBEA clearly articulated the changing expectations for school leadership. The work of a school administrator is complex and demanding. Administrators for the 21st century need to be effective leaders who are able to manage successfully in America?s many varied and diverse communities. They should know and understand their schools and communities, exert leadership to achieve positive educational outcomes, and continue to develop and grow in their own professional expertise. Over time, the role of school principal has changed to reflect the changes in society. ?School leadership has undergone significant transformation in an attempt to gain legitimacy within schools? (Hessel & Holloway, 2002, p. 11). The first principals, ?principal teachers,? served the functions of attendance clerk and building superintendent (Hessel & Holloway, 2002). Over time, the principal has shouldered the responsibilities 23 of lead teacher, teacher of teachers, building manager, human resource manager, instructional resource manager, and instructional leader. The demands on the principal have been paced by the expectations of society (Hessel & Holloway, 2002). High expectations, rapid change, and dynamic transformation define the social context for the 21 st -century principal (Pierce & Stapleton, 2003). Keeping good records, maintaining a clean building, supervising teachers, providing instructional resources, and addressing legislative and distinct regulations remain important and necessary expectations for principals. But, the principal?s recently redefined role as instructional leader focused on student achievement creates new challenges that many principals are unprepared to confront (Pierce & Stapleton, 2003). ?Current principals find very little in their professional preparation or ongoing professional development to equip them for this new role? (IEL, 2000, p. 2). In the Instructions to Implement Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, the NPBEA provides a rationale for leadership standards: The theory and practice of leadership and management is in transition. Decentralized organizational systems are replacing bureaucratic hierarchies, collegial leadership is supplanting authoritarian procedures, delegation and empowerment are displacing talent oligarchies, and quality is viewed as generic decision making, and feedback. These developments substantially change role expectations for school leaders and require of these leaders strong planning, organization, communication, interpersonal group process, problem solving, and change process skills. (NPBEA, 2002, p. 2) Since their publication, standards for school leaders have influenced policy action at the national, state, and local levels. Much of the initial work in administrative 24 standards implementation has taken place in the professional preparation programs at the graduate level. Coursework and practicum experiences for future school leaders are beginning to reflect more of a standards-based emphasis. As a result, some claim future candidates for leadership roles are prepared to meet the standards-based expectations of their job. Many practicing school leaders are the product of administrative training programs that predate the standards movement (IEL, 2000), so their leadership style and practice may be less compatible with the expectations of the administrative standards. Preparation of School Leaders Questioning about whether schools of education are preparing administrators to be effective school leaders has been a pervasive theme and is emerging in legislatures across the country (NCSL, 2006). Many recent studies by states and national organizations argue that traditional educational administration programs throughout the nation are too far removed from the realities of schools and effective practice (Norton et al, 1987; Stricher, 2001; Archer 2005; Levin, 2005). State policymakers and practitioners have begun to scrutinize the elements necessary to improve the preparation of school leaders. Critics of current preparation programs have concluded that the skills and knowledge most necessary for school leaders to succeed include not only problem identification and data analysis or organizational and team building skills, but also improved emphasis on instructional leadership (NCSL, 2007). States have increasingly begun to develop standards for educational administration programs and are intensifying efforts to assess whether these programs are meeting the needs of schools, which have demanding expectations in a new era of heightened 25 accountability. To address the gaps in school leader preparation and training, colleges and universities are being called upon to improve the content and instruction in programs (SREB, 2001). The ISLLC and NCATE have developed similar standards and the two organizations are working together to create a national model of leadership standards that provides common language for leadership expectations across different state policies (NPBEA, 2002). Today, over 46 states report adopting or adapting these standards in state policy for school administrators (National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 2006). Increasing evidence shows that school leaders, throughout all stages of their careers, can benefit from a preparation program in which a seasoned leader helps an intern or prot?g? to prepare to be a school leader (NCSL, 2006). These induction programs vary widely from preparation program to program. Some institutions and programs require fewer than 165 hours; others demand an excess of 632 hours. More than 20 states have mandated or plan to mandate training components such as within certification requirements for all aspiring school administrators (NCSL, 2006). At the heart of any effective organization is a clearly defined and expressed vision (INTASC, 1992). This is no less true for educational leadership preparation programs, where the underlying core values and beliefs driving the program should be clearly embedded within a vision statement which has been collaboratively shaped by its faculty and stakeholders. In the innovative and exemplary programs mentioned in recent literature, these stakeholders include community members, businesses, school districts, and other university preparation programs (Kelley & Peterson, 2000; Jackson & Kelley, 26 2002). Numerous reports indicate these innovative and exemplary programs in educational leadership preparation focus on the curriculum and internship (Chenoweth et al, 2002). In an article by Jackson and Kelly (2002) describing exceptional and innovative programs, the internship ranges from a relatively modest requirement of 100 hours to a half-time full year placement of approximately 700 hours. In most of these programs, the practicum includes the professional guidance of a mentor or veteran, practicing principal who assists candidates in applying course content to daily experiences in schools. On a national basis, guidelines for practicum vary with differing state requirements and institutional expectations. Administrator candidates may be required to have practicum experiences in more than one level of administration (elementary, secondary or central office) or in different contexts (urban, rural, large or small school). The common feature in these innovative programs is the blending of coursework and practicum experience. Bradshaw (1997) reports that extended internships allow administrative candidates to practice listening and other interpersonal skills, and afford them opportunities to identify problems and investigate potential solutions. These authentic school-based problems and activities provide learning opportunities that are often missing in regular traditional classroom-based coursework. Over the past decade a clearer consensus has developed among educators regarding the nature of leadership, and thereby leadership preparation, moving from a managerial model to a visionary collegial model focused on the centrality of student learning (Chenoweth, et al, 2002). Furthermore, the national movement toward accountability has resulted in the creation of educational standards as manifested for leadership preparation in the public schools and for educational leadership preparation programs (Kelley & Peterson, 2000). 27 This evolution of thought has brought educators to the beginning of change in the philosophy and design of leadership preparation programs. Leading proponents of this reframing of educational preparation programs such as Murphy (2002), speak of a focus on transformational leadership (Fullan, 1992), moral stewardship (Senge, 1990), principal as educator/instructional leader (Hoachlander, et al, 2001), and principal as communicator/community builder (Grogan & Andrews, 2002). Fullan (1992) clarifies the meaning of transformational leadership as follows: ?Transformational leaders?focus on changing the culture of the school. They build visions, develop norms of collegiality and continuous improvement, share strategies for coping with problems and resolving conflicts, encourage teacher development as career-long inquiry and learning, and restructure the school to foster continuous development? (Fullan, 1992, p. 7). Joseph Murphy (2001) has argued that progress in school leadership requires greater attention to ?valued ends.? He offers three lines of development: moral stewardship ? a leader who keeps the organization focused on core values of justice, fairness, and community; educator/instructional leader ? a leader who keeps the organization focused on its core task of instructing and educating the next generation, and communicator/community builder ? a leader who nurtures the life of the school by creating open access to parents and citizens, as well as by creating communities of learning within the school. At a time when American schools are becoming increasingly diverse, Myrna Gantner and colleagues (2000) have called attention to the importance of listening to the voices of teachers, parents, and students whose concerns are sometimes drowned out by the ?experts.? Their case study of a Texas school documented the principal?s impact on school climate through promoting democratic participation, 28 creating an inviting culture, building meaningful relationships, and acting ethically. Best practice in the field of educational leadership has evolved from a managerial orientation to a basic philosophy that communicates the importance of being clearly focused on the teaching and learning process and the success of all children. After working together for over a decade, professional organizations including AASA, NAESP, NASSP, UCEA, NCPEA, and NPBEA endorsed a common definition of the best educational preparation programs (Chenoweth, et al, 2002). This definition currently reflects the values encompassed within the guiding principles of the ISLLC Standards, and the outcome-based standards of the ELCC. These guidelines are expressed in university program accreditation standards of NCATE, and are referred to as the ELCC standards. Thirty-five states had adopted or based their own standards on the ISLLC standards by 2001 (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). Of the 500 institutions offering administrative education programs in the United States, 287 are also accredited by NCATE through a process which includes the ELCC standards. Eighty-two of these have received exemplary ratings for one or more of their programs. Wilmore (2002) lists the ISLLC guidelines originally developed by the CCSSO that formed the philosophical core of the ISLLC standards and now drives the ELCC standards. Those guidelines are: ? Reflect the centrality of student learning ? Acknowledge the changing role of the school leader ? Recognize the collaborative nature of school leadership ? [Upgrade] the quality of the profession ? Inform performance-based systems of assessment and evaluation for school leaders 29 ? Be integrated and coherent ? Be predicated on the concepts of access, opportunity, and empowerment for all members of the school community (Wilmore, 2002, pp. 12-13). Building these guiding principles into a program philosophy as non-negotiables means having them at the core of every element of the preparation program. As such, they should be evident from initial recruitment and selection of students to the chosen program delivery model, curriculum, instructional strategies, internships, assessment and accountability measures, and ongoing professional growth opportunities. Summary This review presents much of the best thinking about practices that promote student achievement and their connection to educational leadership. The literature suggests there is consensus about what leaders need to know and be able to do to lead schools in which students are successful. While the literature review highlights promising approaches, it is not an exhaustive study of all leadership areas. Its focus is on secondary programs and the growing body of knowledge about things that work at that level. It serves as a starting point for new ideas about the preparation, development and credentialing of educational leaders who have the skills needed to improve student achievement, especially at the secondary level. The review does caution the reader that, although few topics have been discussed or written about more in the last decade than leadership, current information about how leaders are prepared and developed does not provide sufficient evidence about which models of preparation and development work best. 30 This review suggests that fewer people are seeking jobs as educational leaders. This decline results in simultaneous problems of quality and quantity. Salary, long hours, little local control and other reasons have been given for the decline in applicants. Aspiring effective leaders learn by doing and their preparation should be connected to the actual experiences of leading a school. 31 III. STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: HISTORICAL AND POLICITCAL INFLUENCES Abstract Within the last several years, policy-makers and practitioners have confronted the challenge of replacing many retiring educational leaders. Districts have fewer qualified applicants to fill positions requiring an increasingly sophisticated set of skills to deal with everything from school safety to standards-driven accountability. The recent passage of the No Child Left Behind Act has turned up the heat even more by putting the full weight of federal policy behind the accountability movement, mandating that schools bring all children ? including racial minorities, English-language learners, and students with disabilities ? to an adequate level of progress. In response, policymakers, researchers, and school leaders themselves have scrutinized the job, asking what skills are most essential and formulating recommendations for reshaping the profession. While consensus remains elusive, several persistent themes have emerged. These themes include standards for school leaders, defining instructional leadership, distribution of leadership, development of leaders, and promoting and supporting leadership. What standards guide the work of school leaders? With the nationwide emphasis on standards-based accountability, it was inevitable that reformers would propose 32 standards for educators. This study investigated historical and political influences on standards for school leaders. The researcher used an historical research approach when analyzing public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations such as Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), ELCC (Educational Leadership Constituent Council), NCATE, and Southern Region Educational Board (SREB). In accordance with the qualitative data analysis process developed by Denzin and Lincoln (2003), data from documents and other materials were organized, broken down into manageable units, synthesized, organized into themes, and placed in code categories. The documents were hand-coded for key phrases, descriptors, and explanations, according to the code categories .The following information was reviewed for each of the organizations analyzed: (a) history of the organization; (b) purpose of the organization; (c) history of involvement in educational administration standards; and (d) espoused standards for school leaders. As this study documents, there is increasing support from professional organizations and colleges of education for new models of administrator preparation and professional development. Although they may differ with regard to specific remedies, various professional groups and colleges of education have committed to the idea of broad change. With schools required to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) each year, pressure for reforming how and by whom principals are prepared and developed is unlikely to wane anytime soon. 33 Introduction Our nation is simultaneously acknowledging the 23 rd anniversary of the landmark report, A Nation at Risk, and the bipartisan acceptance of the need for America?s schools to improve. At the same time, implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is forcing educators to confront the challenges facing contemporary school leadership and is making it difficult to ignore the escalating need for higher quality principals ? individuals who have been prepared to provide the instructional leadership necessary to improve student achievement (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Laser-like attention is being focused on one of the variables critical to effective education: leadership. Today, school leadership ? more specifically, the principalship ? is a front burner issue in nearly every state (Hale & Moorman, 2003). The systems that produce our nation?s principals are complex and interrelated ? and governed by the states (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Each state establishes licensing, certification, and re- certification requirements for school leaders and, in most places, approves the college and university programs preparing school leaders. State policy leaders and institutional leaders, therefore, have become key players in efforts for determining the content and delivery of principal preparation programs and processes. Their stated goal: to promote lasting improvements in school leadership development systems by identifying and then adopting change processes that combine the required policy and program elements (Hale & Moorman, 2003). While the jobs of school leaders, including superintendents, principals, teacher leaders, and school board members, have changed dramatically, it appears that neither organized professional development programs nor formal preparation programs based in 34 higher education institutions have adequately prepared those holding these jobs to meet the priority demands of the 21 st century, namely, improved student achievement (Hale & Moorman, 2003). All aspects of the school leadership issue ? the art and the science of principal leadership, as well as the policy and regulatory frameworks in support of a state?s capacity to recruit, prepare, and retain its educational leadership workforce ? are on the table and are being scrutinized (The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, 1999). Methodology The researcher used an historical research approach, analyzing public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations. As part of this process the researcher analyzed large blocks of texts made judgments about the meanings of contiguous blocks of text. The researcher read each document line-by-line to identify themes related to the topic being studied. During the line-by-line reading, the researcher marked up collected documents with different colored translucent markers, as well as placing his own comments in the margins to reflect the general categories emerging from the documents. The researcher made notes of the comments that fall under these categories on different-colored sticky notes with each colored note representing a different concept or category. Two data sources were used in this study. The first data source was public and archival documents published by state departments of education from southeastern states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. For each of these states the following information was reviewed 35 (a) standards used as a model; (b) year state adopted standards; (c) intended purposes for adopting standards; (d) unintended consequences of adopting standards; (e) process used to select standards; (f) parties involved in the selection process; and (g) parties not involved in the selection process. The second data source consisted of public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations such as CCSSO, ELCC, NCATE, and SREB. For each of these organizations, the following information was reviewed (a) history of the organization; (b) purpose of the organization; (c) history of involvement in educational administration standards; and (d) espoused standards for school leaders. In accordance with the qualitative data analysis process developed by Denzin and Lincoln (2003), data from documents and other materials were organized, broken down into manageable units, synthesized, organized into themes, and placed in code categories. The documents were hand-coded for key phrases, descriptors, and explanations, according to the code categories. The History of Preparing School Leaders For this study terms school leadership and educational leadership used interchangably. The term school leadership came into currency in the late 20th century for several reasons. Demands were made on schools for higher levels of pupil achievement, and schools were expected to improve and reform (Wikipedia, 2007). These expectations were accompanied by calls for accountability at the school level. Maintenance of the status quo was no longer considered acceptable. Administration and management are terms that connote stability through the exercise of control and 36 supervision (Wikipedia, 2007). The concept of leadership was favored because it conveys dynamism and proactivity. The principal or school head is commonly thought to be the school leader; however, school leadership may include other persons, such as members of a formal leadership team and other persons who contribute toward the aims of the school. While school leadership or educational leadership have become popular as replacements for educational administration in recent years, leadership arguably presents only a partial picture of the work of school, division/district, and ministerial personnel, not to mention the areas of research explored by university faculty in departments concerned with the operations of schools and educational institutions. The study of principal preparation is of interest for a variety of reasons. It is, of course, of central importance in its own right, i.e. to the extent to which it is linked to the development of more successful educational leaders and school managers (Murphy, 1998). An analysis of preparation programs provides a glimpse into the development of the field of school administration. Table One provides an overview of the major events in administrator preparation. Table 1 Major Events in Administration Preparation Date Major Event 1866 Department of Superintendence gives rise to American Association of School Administrators (AASA) - Little if any formal specialized preparation provide (Botton, 1966) 1875 William L. Payne (Superintendent in Michigan) wrote the first book, Chapters on School Administration, dealing with school administration. He also taught the first college course in school administration (Callahan & Button, 1964) 1900 to 1930 Social Agent Role for school administrators. This role included social and cultural forces heavily influence training for educational administration. (Callahan, 1962) 37 Early 1900s Professor of Education Leadership and programs specific to school administration dealing with basic pedagogy. No licenses in educational administration. (Cooper & Boyd, 1987) 1910 ? 1915 Business influence on training for educational administration. This training centered on technical and mechanical and practical aspects of the job. (Gregg, 1969) 1930s Human Relations influence on training for school administration (Gregg, 1969) 1946 125 institutions were engaged in preparing school administrators. They offered formal coursework in educational leadership required by states for leadership positions. (Silver, 1982) 1946 ? 1986 Move from technique-oriented substance based on practical experience toward theory-oriented based on disciplines ?external? to education. (Crowson & McPherson, 1987) 1947 Programs began to mirror the high status professions in larger cities ? science of school administration (Callahan, 1962) 1947 National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) (Murphy, 1998) CPEA composed of eight universities funded by the Kellogg Foundation. Its purpose is to institute change in preparation programs. (Getzels, 1977) 1955 Committee for the Advancement of School Administrators (CASA) formed with the purpose to develop professional standards of performance. (Willower, 1983; Griffiths, 1959; Moore 1964) 1956 UCEA shaped the study and teaching of educational administration and preparation programs (Murphy, 1998) 1985 National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration formed from the UCEA?s executive council NCEAA published three works: Leaders for America?s Schools, Address by Griffiths to AERA; NCEEA papers. (Grifiths, 1988) 1986 500 institutions offer preparation programs 1986 + Shift from scientific to a post-scientific approach. (Murphy, 1998) 38 1988 NPBEA created with help from UCEA. NPBEA included ten groups. Published The Reform Agenda which outlined an extensive overhaul and strengthening of preparation programs. (NCEEA, 1989) 1990 National Commission for Principals funded by NAESP published Principals for Our Changing Schools: Preparation and Certification (NCP, 1990) 1993 NCP fleshed out twenty-one functional domains for preparation programs. (NCP, 1993) 1994 NPBEA form group called ISLLC (CCSSO, 1996) 1994 UCEA updates knowledge base in educational administration preparation programs (Murphy, 1998) 1995 NCATE developed curriculum guidelines for school administration (Murphy, 1998) 1996 ISLLC under the supervision of CCSSO and in cooperation with NPBEA produced the first set of standards for school leaders, Standards for School Leaders. (CCSSO, 1996) 2002 NPBEA relying heavily on ISLLC Standards produced Standards for Advanced Programs In Educational Leadership (CCSSO, 1996) 2002 NCATE and ELCC used Standards for Advanced Programs to evaluate the effectiveness of administration training programs with colleges and universities. (CCSSO, 1996) Early 2005 NPBEA names committee to update ISLLC Standards and Standards for Advanced Programs (CCSSO, 1996) Mid 2005 Committee Chair recommends ISLLC and ELLC Standards to be revised at the same time. (CCSSO, 1996) Late 2006 Revised ISLLC Standards given to NPBEA?s executive board for review. (CCSSO, 1996) Mid 2007 NPBEA plans to take action on revised ELCC Standards. (CCSSO, 1996) 39 Although the administration of schools has a relatively long history, in its early days it ?went largely unrecognized as an essential component of school operation? and the actual number of administrators was quite small until after the Civil War (Guba, 1960, p. 115). In 1875, William L. Payne, then a school superintendent in Michigan, wrote the first book in the United States of America dealing with school administration, Chapters on School Supervision (Murphy, 1998). After receiving a faculty appointment in education at the University of Michigan in 1879, Payne also taught the first college level course in school administration (Callahan & Button, 1964). Although other ?departments of education? were also established in the 1870s, professors of educational leadership and programs specific to school administration ?were unknown until the early 1900s? (Cooper & Boyd, 1987, p. 16). What these education departments did offer students was subject matter ?relating to school management as well as to philosophy? and pedagogy (Moore, 1964, p. 11). The ?first teachings to prospective administrators were ?theories? about exemplary school leaders who were then exhorted into ?great man? and ?trait? theories (Cooper & Boyd, 1987, p. 7). Callahan and Button (1964) and Button (1966) isolated two doctrines of school leadership before 1900 that, at least to some extent, exerted influence on thinking about the content to which administrators were exposed from 1870 to 1905 in these newly forming departments of education. Under the doctrine of administration as the teaching of teachers, ?administration was very simple, really; administration was supervision? (p. 218). Because the proper role of education was instruction, much of the limited education administrators did receive was in the areas of curriculum and instruction (Callahan & Button, 1964). This new doctrine, ?with its emphasis on eternal wisdom and moral 40 judgment, made the administrator into something like the clergyman and borrowed from him some of the clergyman?s status? (p. 219). It also reinforced the emphasis on theories about outstanding school leaders in the basic subject matter being offered to students of school administration. In 1900, no institutions were offering systematic study in the area of school management. By the end of World War II, 125 institutions were actively engaged in preparing school administrators (Silver, 1982). Many states were requiring formal coursework in educational leadership for administrative positions and were certifying graduates of preparation programs for employment (Moore, 1964). As these elements of the profession began to find acceptance, more and more principals and superintendents embarked on their careers with university training in the practice of school administration. The education received by superintendents and principals was largely undifferentiated from that of teachers until the onslaught and widespread acceptance of the scientific management movement throughout the corporate world between 1910 and 1915 (Murphy, 1998). For the next 20 years, business exerted considerable influence over preparation programs for school administrators (Culbertson, 1988). During this time preservice education for school leaders tended to stress the technical and mechanical aspects of administration, specific and immediate tasks, and the practical aspects of the job (Callahan & Button, 1964, Gregg, 1969, Newlon, 1934). The objective was to train students to understand the job of administration as it was and to perform successfully in the roles they undertook. This approach to preparation was what Campbell et al (1987) 41 labeled preparation for the role, as opposed to studying what might need to be done differently and preparing for roles as change agents. Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing throughout the 1950s and 1960s, instruction drawn from practice came to be overshadowed in preparation programs by theoretical and conceptual material drawn from the various social sciences (Murphy, 1998). During this time considerable criticism was leveled against the performance of existing school leaders and social science?s lure of an alternative vision that called for improving the education available to prospective school leaders (Murphy, 1998). Also during this time, school administration was characterized by considerable enthusiasm, activity, and growth and by dramatic changes in the structure and content of training programs (Wynn, 1957; Willower, 1983; Crowson & McPherson, 1987). It was a period that many believed would lead to full professionalization of school administration (Farquhar, 1977; Goldhammer, 1983). 1947 ? 1985 Four major events mark the time period from 1947 ? 1985. The first of these events was the formation of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) in 1947. By linking professors throughout the country for the first time, the NCPEA exercised considerable influence over emerging conceptions of the profession and over school administration training programs (Gregg, 1960; Campbell et al, 1987). The second defining event in this time period was the creation of the Cooperative Project in Educational Administration (CPEA), a consortium of eight universities funded by the Kellogg Foundation whose primary purpose was to institute 42 changes in preparation programs. Continuing initiatives chartered at earlier NCPEA meetings, especially the 1954 Denver gathering (Getzels, 1977), the CPEA encouraged a multidisciplinary approach to analysis of administration and to the education of school leaders (Murphy, 1998). CPEA had a profound influence on preparation programs and on the practice of school administration (Gregg, 1969). The establishments of the Committee for the Advancement of School Administration (CASA) in 1955 and of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) in 1956 are the third and fourth milestones that helped shape school administration during this time period (Griffiths, 1959; Moore, 1964). The CASA?s most important work focused on the development of professional standards of performance. The UCEA?s influence has been quite pervasive (Willower, 1983). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s it ?became the dominant force in the advancement of preparation programs? (Campbell et al, 1987, pp. 182 ? 183). During this time period there was a considerable amount of activity in preparation programs throughout the United States of America during the scientific era (Murphy, 1998), especially during the 1950s and 1960s. During 1950s and 1960s, the United States of America experienced the space race, the cold war, and the desegregation of public schools. This was a period of rapid growth in educational administration. While approximately 125 institutions were in the business of preparing school leaders in 1946, 40 years later over 500 were involved (NCEEA, 1987). During the 40-year growth period, the predominant trend for preparation programs was to infuse content from the social sciences. This movement intended ?to produce a foundation of scientifically supported knowledge in educational administration in place of the hortatory, seat-of-the- pants literature already in place? (Crowson & McPherson, 1987, pp. 47-48) and a trend 43 ?away from technique-oriented substance based upon practical experience and toward theory-oriented substance based on disciplines ?external? to education? (Culbertson & Farquhar, 1971, p. 9). The scientific movement led to: ? A conception of educational administration as ?an applied science within theory and research are directly and linearly linked to professional practice [and in which] the former always determine the latter, and thus knowledge is superordinate to the principal and designed to the principal and designed to prescribe practice? (Sergiovanni, 1995, p. 4); ? The acceptance of a heavy reliance on social science content ?as an indicator of a high quality program? (Miklos, 1983, p. 160); ? ?The borrowing and adopting of research techniques and instruments from the behavioral sciences? (Culbertson, 1965, p. 7); ? A multidisciplinary approach to preparation (Culbertson, 1963, Hodgkinson, 1975). 1986 - 2007 As was true in the early years, today?s (1986 to 2007) turmoil is being fueled by attacks on the current state of preparation programs, critical analyses of practicing school administrators, and references to alternative visions of what programs should become (Murphy, 1998). While the current era of turmoil was foreshadowed by scholars such as Harlow (1962) and Culbertson (1963) 35 years ago and began to pick up momentum starting with 44 Greenfield's (1975) insightful critique, it was not until the mid 1980s that the scale was tipped toward a critical analysis of educational administration in general and of preparation programs in particular. Subsequently, every facet of the education of school administrators has come under serious scrutiny in the last decade. Almost every program component has been found wanting: (a) few recruitment efforts are undertaken and selection standards are low; (b) program content is irrelevant, connected neither to the central mission of schooling nor to the practice of leadership; (c) instruction is dull; (d) `faculty are only marginally more knowledgeable than their students' (Hawley 1988: 85); (e) standards of performance are largely conspicuous by their absence (Murphy 1990, 1992). Also contributing to the current turmoil is the opinion that existing school leaders are responsible for the current crises in education and that they are incapable (or unwilling) of solving the array of problems that plague schools (Murphy 1990). It is argued that school administrators are mere managers, nurturing a dysfunctional and costly bureaucracy (Murphy 1991). Concurrently, their perceived inability to address fundamental educational (Evans 1991) and value issues (Greenfield 1988) in schooling is dissected with increasing frequency. While there is an emerging consensus about the deficiencies of current preparation programs and the leaders they appoint (Hale & Moorman, 2003), there is less agreement about an alternative vision that might shape the existing turmoil into a new model for preparing tomorrow?s leaders. 45 One marker of this period that will most likely be highlighted is the set of activities comprising the work of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA). Growing out of the deliberations of the Executive Council of UCEA, the Commission was formed in 1985 under the direction of Daniel E. Griffiths. The NCEEA has produced three influential documents that have promoted considerable discussion both within and outside educational administration: The 1987 report Leaders for America?s Schools, Griffiths? address to the American Educational Research Association, and a UCEA-sponsored, edited volume containing most of the background papers commissioned by the NCEEA (Griffiths et al, 1988). These three documents have helped crystallize the sense of what is wrong with the profession, extend discussion about possible solutions and, to a lesser extent, provide signposts for those engaged in redefining preparation programs (Murphy, 1998). Following up on these activities, the UCEA executive director initiated discussions with foundations and set about mustering support for one of the NCEEA recommendations, the creation of the National Policy Board Educational Administration (NPBEA). After considerable work on the part of UCEA to forge a union among the executive directors of 10 groups with a deep-seated interest in school administration, the NPBEA was created in 1988. The NPBEA has undertaken a series of activities designed to provide direction for the reconstruction of preparation programs and for the institutions that house them (Thomson, 1998). After a year of work supported by the UCEA, chaired by the UCEA's Executive Director, Patrick Forsyth, and facilitated by the NPBEA's Executive Secretary, David L. Clark, the NPBEA released its first report (NPBEA, 1989). 46 The report outlines an extensive overhaul and strengthening of preparation programs. Its recommendations were later adopted in slightly modified form by the 50-plus universities comprising the UCEA. Following release of The Reform Agenda, the NPBEA published a series of occasional papers that were designed to inform the reform debate in educational administration. It also began to sponsor national conferences, in conjunction with the Danforth Foundation, to help professors discover alternatives to deeply ingrained practices in training programs (Murphy, 1998). There are two standards-defining activities that will likely be considered as the catalysts for shaping the evolution and perhaps the transformation of preparation programs. The first initiative was the development by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) of their curriculum guidelines for school administration. This work, completed under the guidance of the NPBEA over a 3-year period, brought the ?best thinking? of the Policy Board, via Principals for Our Changing Schools: The Knowledge and Skill Base, and the various professional associations into a comprehensive framework to reshape preparation programs for school leaders (National Commission for the Principalship, 1993; Thomson, 1998). A second initiative, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), conducted under the auspices of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and in cooperation with the NPBEA, produced the first universal set of standards for school leaders (Murphy, 1998). Approved in late 1996, Standards for School Leaders sets about strengthening preparation programs primarily through the manipulation of state controls over areas such as licensure, relicensure, and program approval (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996; McCarthy, 1998; Thomson, 1998). 47 History and Development of ELCC Standards In 1988, 10 national associations interested in combining their energy and influence to become more effective in implementing improvements for education founded the National Policy Board of Educational Administration (NPBEA) (NPBEA, 2002). These associations, representing groups concerned about educational leadership and policy, included the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of School Business Officials (ASBO), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), and University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) (NPBEA, 2002). The purpose of the NPBEA as stated in its Bylaws is to advance the professional standards of educational administration by collective action (NPBEA, 2002). In July of 1993, its Board of Directors articulated two new major goals: develop common and higher standards for the state licensure of principals, and develop a common set of guidelines for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for advanced programs in educational leadership. The objective of this second goal was to provide consistent criteria for preparing candidates for a broad range of leadership roles (NPBEA, 2002). The NPBEA appointed a Working Group of representatives from AACTE, AASA, ASCD, NAESP, NASSP, NCPEA, and UCEA to develop common NCATE 48 Guidelines for educational leaders. Over the next year, the Working Group met several times, sent the Guidelines out for review by universities, state agencies, and educational associations and then presented a final draft to the NPBEA and the Special Areas Studies Board (SASB) of NCATE (NPBEA, 2002). The NCATE-approved 1995 Guidelines for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership were formulated from several publications developed by national associations and regional bodies that described what principals, superintendents, supervisors, and curriculum directors needed to know and be able to do as identified by conducting a task analysis of the principalship, identifying knowledge and skills theoretically essential to the principalship by using a conceptual model developed at Texas A&M Principals Center, and receiving feedback from focus groups comprised of practicing educational administrators (NPBEA, 2002). These documents included: Professional Standards for the Superintendency, published by AASA in 1993, Proficiencies for Principals, K-8, published by NAESP in 1988 and revised in 1991, Principals For Our Changing Schools: The Knowledge and Skill Base, published by NPBEA in 1993, Proposed NCATE Curriculum Guidelines for the Specialty Area of Educational Leadership, published by ASCD in 1993, and Framework for the Continual Professional Development of Administrators, published by Region 1 of the Department of Education and the Northeast States in 1993. Also incorporated as resources were two assessment structures: The Administrator Diagnostics Inventory, released by NAESP in 1985, and the Principals Assessment Center, developed by NASSP in 1980. Each of the documents is research-based, includes extensive citations, involves multiple authors, and features 49 broad participation by representatives from higher education and secondary and elementary education. Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) standards expect its leadership candidates to promote the success of all students by: 1. ?facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by the school community; 2. promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff; 3. managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment; 4. collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources; 5. acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; 6. understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political social, economic, legal, and cultural context? (NPBEA, 2002, pp. 2 - 18). Revision Process NCATE requires that guidelines be revised and resubmitted every five years. Between publication of the Educational Leadership Constituent Council?s Guidelines for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership in 1995 and the time for their revision, NCATE published its NCATE 2000 document which delineates a new direction for accreditation. This new direction calls for a more results-focused orientation. Programs 50 are now assessed on how well graduates are prepared to perform in the workplace rather than on the number of courses offered or on objectives listed in syllabi. Also during this period, standards developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) were disseminated and adopted or adapted by a large number of states for the licensure of school administrators. Though the ELCC Guidelines and the ISLLC standards were similar, some universities believed the challenge of addressing two separate sets of criteria was too burdensome. Consequently, the two sets of criteria were combined in the new standards. In planning the process for revising the guidelines, the NPBEA appointed a working group and charged it with three central tasks: integrate the ELCC Guidelines within in the ISLLC standards framework, restructure the standards to include doctoral level program reviews, and add the performance assessment component outlined in the NCATE 2000 initiative (NPBEA, 2002). As a first step, the working group staff conducted a review of the literature pertaining to the preparation of school administration (NPBEA, 2002). The primary publications cited were the Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (1999) and the 21 st Century Challenges for School Administrators (2001). These two handbooks captured the profession?s best thinking in the time period following the drafting of the initial guidelines. Two specific references were cited often by the working group: Skills for Successful 21 st Century School Leaders (1998) and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for School Leaders (1996). Each NPBEA member association selected an individual to represent them on the working group with consultants from NCATE, NPBEA, and the ELCC. The committee 51 met many times over the course of a year and a half with extensive communications between meetings. A draft of the revised standards was posted on NCATE?s website for comment and circulated in the fall of 2000 and the winter of 2001 to NPBEA association members who mailed them to their constituency members. In addition, feedback was obtained from discussion sessions held at national conferences of the major education leadership associations. The draft standards were also placed on the websites of all NPBEA member associations and disseminated to university professors through state associations for comment. Feedback also obtained from ISTE?s National Center for Preparing Tomorrow?s Teachers to Use Technology. The comments and suggestions received were considered and discussed at a series of meetings in the spring of 2001. Final adjustments were made during the summer of 2001 in preparation for presentation to NCATE?s Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB) in October of 2001 (NPBEA, 2002). History and Development of ISLLC Standards In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) published Leaders for America?s Schools, widely acknowledged as a pivotal document that called for reform in preparing educational leaders (McCarthy, 1999; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). The report blasted recruitment practices, inattention to instructional leadership, shoddy professional development, low licensure standards, and inattention to real-world problems and experience. The commission called for shutting down educational leadership programs in colleges and universities nationwide if they lacked the resources or commitment to provide the excellence called for by the commission (California Department of Education, 2006). 52 About the same time, the Danforth Foundation sponsored two influential projects, the Danforth Principal Preparation Program and the Danforth Professors Program. The programs involved 22 universities and stressed clinical experience, field mentorships, intellectual and moral development, and heavy recruitment of women and minorities among practicing classroom teachers (McCarthy, 1999). The NCEEA report sparked creation of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), which published two reports of its own: Improving the Preparation of School Administration: An Agenda for Reform (1989), and Alternative Certification for School Leaders (1990). These, too, recommended revising core curricula to emphasize instructional practice and ethics, raising standards for licensure and rectification, and relying more heavily on clinical experience and other forms of field- based preparation (Hoacher, Alt, & Beltranena, 2001). In the early 1990s, NPBEA developed accreditation standards that addressed four major areas: strategic leadership, organizational leadership, instructional leadership, and political and community leadership (Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 1995). Building further on these efforts, NPBEA, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers and with support from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Danforth Foundation, established the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). ISLLC promulgated standards to underscore the centrality of student learning in leadership preparation programs. ISLLC specifies that the desirable educational leader promotes success for all students by: 1. ?facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the community; 53 2. advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and the professional growth of staff members; 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 ethics; and 6. understanding, responding to and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts? (CCSSO, 1996, pp. 12 ? 24) To date, the ISLLC standards have been distributed in 34 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories (Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). The extent to which these standards have penetrated local hiring and professional development is not clear, but they appear to be influencing state licensure procedures (Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). The National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) adopted NPBEA standards in 2001. Preparation programs desiring NCATE accreditation now must demonstrate attention to developing a shared school vision focused on teaching and learning, understanding assessment and the role of data in decision-making, and grounding leaders in a strong understanding of curriculum and instructional practices (Hoacher, Alt, & Beltranea, 2001). In addition, students in accredited educational administration programs must demonstrate that they can implement useful professional development for teachers and administrators, manage school resources and obtain additional support, use technology to enrich curriculum and instruction, create and 54 implement strategies for harnessing community support, and communicate goals via the media (Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 1995). Implications for School Leaders The changing school and community contexts create unusual demands as well as exceptional opportunities for school leaders. Schools must adopt new missions, structures, and relationships in response. A better use of resources, especially human talent and initiative, is required. Expectations will increase for small units to solve problems with minimal oversight, which, with the constant stream of change, will require maximum organizational flexibility. Schools, therefore, must be agile as well as team oriented (Indiana University, 2002). Under these conditions, educational leaders must possess the capacity to manage change and to create collaborative action on behalf of student results. More centrally, the challenge for educational leaders is to organize local talent to identify and accomplish the mission of the changing, globally-driven school. It appears some national organizations believe few principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, or supervisors are prepared for this formidable task (NPBEA, 2002). Several educational reform reports of the last decade conclude that the United States cannot have excellent schools without excellent leaders (Chenoweth, et al, 2002). A key leverage point for meeting major challenges facing the nation?s schools, therefore, is effective leadership. An immediate task is to develop competent professionals to lead the changing schools by, in part, making certain the new conditions facing school leaders are reflected in redesigned preparation and certification programs (NCSL, 2003). 55 Traditionally, educational administration programs have focused on abstractions in an attempt to unify the field conceptually rather than examining the changing contexts and functions of educational leaders (Garner, 2003). Today?s school leaders, however, must combine the skills of both the generalist and the specialist. They must be adept at identifying and solving specific functional problems as well as analyzing broad issues. Tomorrow?s educational leaders must be able to work with diverse groups and to integrate ideas to solve a continuous flow of problems. They must study their craft as they practice their craft, reflecting and then applying what they have learned to people and institutions and the achievement of tasks. This requires patience and perspective, the exercise of judgment and wisdom, and the development of new technical and analytical skills. Finally, it requires personal values that integrate the ethical dimensions of decision-making with those of a more technical variety (NPBEA, 2002). These conditions require an ?outward looking,? (e-Lead, 2007) environmentally influenced vision of school leadership, moving away from the traditional inward looking, content dominated format. Defining the practice of leadership in contemporary school settings, identifying the knowledge and skills essential to effective practice, integrating theory, and practice, and designing a quality accreditation process all reflect a useful direction for the field. 56 IV. STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS: THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Abstract A major aspect of the debate concerning the quality of education in the United States centers upon the nature of leadership at the school level. Evidence is accumulating that leadership within a school, and particularly that provided by the school principal, is directly related to various measures of educational quality (Mescall, 2007). Questions, then, have turned to the preparation and licensing of school administrators, the assessment of administrative performance, and the controls for monitoring entrance and continuation in this field. Policy makers, particularly state governors and state legislatures who have ultimate legal responsibility, are pressing professional organizations and agencies to establish standards which can be used to judge preparation and licensing of school administrators. Actively supported by school administrators, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), in cooperation with other agencies and foundations, has taken the initiative to provide the knowledge base and the experience to deal with responsible control and development of school administration as a profession (Sergiovanni, 2006). During the past decades it has sponsored the University Consortium on Field Based Preparation of School Principals, the National Assessment Center, the 57 Study of School Environments, and the National Commission on Standards for the Principalship. This article investigates the role national and professional educational organizations played as southeastern states developed their standards for school leaders. The researcher used an historical research approach when analyzing public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations such as Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), ELCC (Educational Leadership Constituent Council), National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB). In accordance with the qualitative data analysis process developed by Denzin and Lincoln (2003), data from documents and other materials were organized, broken down into manageable units, synthesized, organized into themes, and placed in code categories. The documents were hand-coded for key phrases, descriptors, and explanations, according to the code categories. The following information was reviewed for each of the organizations analyzed: (a) history of the organization; (b) purpose of the organization; (c) history of involvement in educational administration standards; and (d) espoused standards for school leaders. Ongoing efforts to refine administration preparation have focused on an extensive set of attitudes and skills contained in the Interstate School Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders. The consortium was made up of more than 30 educational agencies and all of the major organizations involved in school administration (including AASA, NASSP, and the NAESP). As early as 2003, 24 states had implemented ISLLC?s six standards, and many preparation programs have redesigned their curricula around ISLLC?s vision. 58 Introduction Since publication of A Nation At Risk in the early 1980s (Beyer, 2006), the general public along with governmental, educational, and the business community have called for changes and improvements in educational systems at all levels. These calls for change have been directed toward improvement in programs ranging from early childhood education to university programs. In recent years, public and private agencies have been developing non-traditional public education formats such as charter schools, school/business internships and partnerships, contract schools, K-14 partnerships, school- to-work programs, or attempting to expand on already existing private educational opportunities through vouchers and tax exemptions. Some of these calls for change and restructuring have been directed at university programs in both the areas of teacher preparation and the training of school administrators (Milstein & Associates, 1993; Murphy & Hallinger, 1995; Newman & Wehlage, 1995) and have been incorporated into the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind (U.S. Government, 2002). Administrative theory as traditionally taught in educational administration preparation programs is rooted in organizational management, leadership theory, and the social sciences (Beyer, 2006). Theoretical frameworks found in texts utilized in educational administration preparation programs include: systems theory, human resource management, organizational change and development, total quality management, power and politics, decision-making, general management and leadership skills, visioning, teaming, and organizational culture, to name only a few (Beyer, 2006). 59 These theoretical constructs form a foundation for understanding organizational administration in general and educational administration in particular. Background Following publication of A Nation at Risk, some academicians have challenged the rationale of applying general organizational leadership and social science theories to the preparation and development of school leaders. Subsequently, there has been an emphasis on preparing school administrators to be instructional leaders, with researchers and writers emphasizing the uniqueness and importance of curriculum and instructional knowledge for school administrators (Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1999; Starratt, 1996). Yet, as Leithwood (1992) notes: "Instructional leadership" is an idea that has served many schools well throughout the 1980s and 1990s. But in light of current restructuring initiatives designed to take schools into the 21st century, "instructional leadership" no longer appears to capture the heart of what school administration will have to become (p. 8). Public education is one portion of a complex system of society that extends far beyond the walls of the schoolhouse. The administration of educational institutions is impacted and influenced by businesses, communities, governmental agencies, laws, special interest and not-for-profit groups, and the general citizenry. The demand of these groups to improve the quality of public education and prepare students for the world of work beyond school is becoming more intense each year. The development of state and national standards, public charter schools, and schools-of-choice across the nation has placed the school administrator in a position of competition and accountability heretofore 60 unknown (Beyer, 2006). Demands by businesses, parents, community groups, legislation, and federal and state governments have forced the school administrator to listen to and collaborate more closely with social service providers and governmental agencies. These economic, social, and political pressures and changes require "leadership that is so completely revolutionary that it challenges all our old paradigms" (McFarland, Senn & Childress, 1994, p. 29). The importance of this statement is supported by Beyer and Ruhl- Smith (2000) when they state, "This opinion is shared by a cross-section of leaders representing business, education, government, entertainment, and other for-profit and not-for-profit sectors"(p. 35). In recent years the focus of education reform efforts has shifted in a dramatic way to the leadership and performance of school principals. The increased attention is emanating from policy makers, educators, and a variety of interest groups and results from recognition of the tremendous influence school leaders exert on the quality of teaching and learning in schools (Olson, 2000). Although not the sole determinant of success, significant improvement in student achievement cannot happen without strong, effective leadership (McGuire, 2003). Thus, in the midst of state efforts to increase accountability, many states are taking actions to effect change via the principalship. As noted by McCarthy (2004), preparation programs and certification standards are currently generating more debate than any other issue in educational administration. Dissatisfaction with current recruitment practices and training of school leaders has opened the door to discussion of alternatives to traditional preparation routes (Haberman, 2004). How did educational administration become the brunt of so much negative press, and why is it perceived to have failed so miserably in the eyes of so many? What is it that 61 teachers, principals, and superintendents do not know and cannot do in their professional role that fuels this ongoing debate about poorly run schools and weak leadership? How does one reconcile the positive view of education as an equalizing force in America and the cynical view of education as an institution out of step with present day needs? Are educational administration professors and graduate programs so out of touch with the K ? 12 schools that the training received through university programs is only marginally utilitarian to those who lead American schools? In his report, Levine (2005) illustrates that the quality of university-based administrator preparation programs are considered to be a primary weakness in the nation?s educational systems. University-based programs in educational administration have been undergoing scrutiny and have been encouraged to improve by such organizations as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), the related Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and various derivative groups. However, the questions remain: how did we get to the present situation and what knowledge base should the curriculum reflect? How Did We Get Here? It was in the first years of the 20 th century that the superintendency first grew to include elements of business management as well as educational oversight (Hess, 2003). The modern principalship emerged a bit later, as reformers sought solace in the ?scientific? management of schools (Andrews, 2002). Reformers sought to centralize control of community schools under professionally trained educators who would then 62 operate in accord with their training, free from political interference (Coooper & Boyd, 1987). Elwood Cubberley launched the field of educational administration in the 1920s. From the beginning, the field was marked by a curious disconnect ? administrators expressed a preference for spending time on instructional leadership, the area to which they devoted the least time (Sykes, Gary, & Elmore, 1968). Unfortunately, the new science of education management failed to bear fruit (Hess, 2003), taking root in professional educational schools that would turn away from research in favor of philosophizing (Culbertson, 1988). In the 1970s, critics started to attack principals and superintendents as out of step with the public and unconnected with school quality (Crowson & Hannaway, 1989). Training was criticized for deterring the nation?s educators from entering administration, enshrining embarrassingly low standards, and featuring too many weak programs that graduate too many unprepared administrators (Cooper & Boyd, 1985). The criticisms prompted a wave of state efforts to boost licensure requirements that were later deemed largely ineffective (Cooper & Boyd, 1987). By the 1980s, research on ?effective schools? had produced widespread attention on the importance of principals and had given birth to the notion of ?instructional leadership? ? a multidimensional construct that referred to school leaders who support a culture focused on the core business of teaching and learning, provide professional development, use data to evaluate performance (Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990). Lost amidst the jargon was any recognition that the qualities of instructional leadership, 63 when depicted in a coherent fashion, were largely interchangeable with the precepts of effective management and leadership more generally (Hill, 2002). In 1987, ongoing concerns about educational leadership prompted the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) to form a blue-ribbon panel to address concerns about school leadership. This panel, the National Council on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA), recommended potentially promising reforms including reducing the number of preparation programs, partnering universities with schools, increasing professional development, and reforming licensure standards (Young & Peterson, 2002). Unfortunately, client groups such as professional administrators captured the push for change, and schools of education used the reform process to increase licensure barriers and strengthen the status quo. In 1996, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), which included the major school administration client groups, finalized the ?Standards for School leaders.? The ISLLC initiative, which began in August 1994, was fueled by the contributions of the 24 member states, a generous foundational grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, and assistance from the Danforth Foundation and the NPBEA. The initiative operates under the aegis of the Council of Chief State School Officers. The 24 member states are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, the following professional associations are affiliated with ISLLC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of School Administrators, Association for Supervision and 64 Curriculum Development, Association of Teacher Educators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, National Policy Board of Educational Administration, National School Boards Association, and University Council for Educational Administration (CCSSO, 1996). What Knowledge Base Should the Curriculum Reflect? The knowledge base in educational leadership has been the subject of a great deal of reflection, debate, and thought throughout the past decade. Connected to this development is a growing interest in performance-based standards as criteria to assess practice in the field and as scaffolding to structure educational leadership programs (Bedard & Aitken, 2004; US DOE, 2006).). By 2002, the ISLLC standards had been incorporated into policy by 35 states. What the standards seem to share is an orientation to prepare and assess educational leaders around a set of interrelated roles whose core purpose is to improve the learning environments of all children and youth in publicly funded schools. One could construe the standards movement as a response to the development of accountability frameworks during this period that, in a narrow but significant way, raised the stakes of, and public knowledge about, student achievement and how schools measured up in and supported student learning. In the United States, many states use standards as criteria for licensure and certification of school leaders (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). 65 An initial impetus for reconsidering educational leadership programs resulted from the 1987 benchmark report from the National Commission of Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA), Leaders for America?s Schools. The UCEA took initiative on the report?s recommendations under the leadership of Patrick Forsyth in 1992 and developed a discussion around knowledge domains of educational leadership. Bredeson (1995) cites the UCEA as having identified seven knowledge domains reflecting the educational administration field, ??that serve as organizers for mapping educational administration? (p. 52). After extensive research and consultation, and considerable controversy, the UCEA adopted these domains as the basis for the educational administration knowledge base. They are: societal and cultural influences on schooling; teaching and learning process; organizational studies; leadership and management processes; policy and political studies; legal and ethical dimensions of schooling; and economic and financial dimensions of schooling (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). In citing a rationale for developing these domains, the UCEA Plenum Report (1992) states that this was the first comprehensive effort to map and integrate the knowledge base ?since the fragmentation and paradigm shifts of the 1970s and 1980s? (pp. 13 ? 14). The report also claimed that the educational administration curriculum had been the product of ?buffeting by social, historical, and political winds; it has never been the product of deliberate systematic, or consensual shaping by practitioners and scholars? (p. 15). These proposed domains were widely debated and, in some cases, were deemed inadequate (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). Whereas the UCEA knowledge base is likely an accurate depiction of the technical and scholarly aspects of educational administration, it 66 also needs to be recognized primarily in the context of a functionalist framework within which it is embedded, with only marginal representation of the critical reconceptualist notions of school leadership (UCEA Plenum Report, 1992). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed the first universal standards for the licensing of school principals in 35 states in the United States (ISLLC, 1996). Murphy and Forsyth (1999) reported that this initiative ?sets about strengthening the academic arm of the profession primarily through the manipulation of state controls over areas such as licensure, re-licensure, and program approval? (p. 28). The result was a model of leadership standards designed to enhance an understanding of effective leadership, to reflect the changing nature of society, and to nurture an evolving model of learning community (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). More importantly, the standards signaled a shift to linking the work of school leadership to improving the learning conditions for students. The six standards in ISLLC focus on the practical application of leadership in promoting the success of students (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). Yet another standard-defining activity was undertaken by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2000). NCATE?s curriculum guidelines for school administration were developed in partnership with a variety of national level professional associations (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). Five general areas defining leadership were subdivided into 12 leadership standards and subsequently into many more distinct curriculum outcomes. The first area is Strategic Leadership which is the knowledge, skills and attributes to identify contexts, develop vision and purpose with others, utilize information, frame problems, exercise leadership processes to achieve common goals, and act ethically for educational communities. 67 The second area is Instructional Leadership which is the knowledge, skills, and attributes to design with others appropriate curricula and instructional programs, to develop learner-centered school cultures, to assess outcomes, to provide student personnel services, and to plan collaboratively with faculty professional development activities aimed at improving instruction. Area three is Organizational Leadership which is the knowledge, skills, and attributes to understand and improve the organization, implement operational plans, manage financial resources, and apply decentralized management processes and procedures. The fourth area is Political and Community Leadership which is the knowledge, skills, and attributes to act in accordance with legal provisions and statutory requirements, to apply regulatory standards, to develop and apply appropriate policies, to be conscious of ethical implications of policy initiatives and political actions, to relate public policy initiatives to student welfare, to understand schools as political systems, to involve citizens and service agencies, and to develop effective staff communications and public relations programs. Area five is Internship which is the internship is defined as the process and product that result from the application in a workplace environment of the strategic, instructional, organizational, and contextual leadership program standards. When coupled with integrating experiences through related clinics or cohort seminars, the outcome should be a powerful synthesis of knowledge and skills useful to practicing school leaders. These standards, which have shaped much of newer leadership programming in the United States for the last decade, are not without critics (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). 68 English (2003) scathingly questions the efficacy of ISLLC standards, citing them as examples of job deskilling and deprofessionalization, and he paints their strongest advocates as cult-like priests preaching functionalist-positivist messages disguised as something new and different. From a critical postmodern view, he assails the standards, and their designers, on both political and epistemological grounds. What makes professional practice different from other forms of work is the autonomy provided for practitioners to define and engage in it. One of the hallmarks of a profession is the presence of a knowledge base as a repository or esoteric information not easily available to talented laypersons. The presence of such a knowledge base creates the boundaries of exclusivity, privilege, and power?When it is encapsulated in the apparatus of state licensure, it cements the political power of those working within it and who benefit by it. To mask the essential exercise of raw political power leading towards monopoly and hegemony, the ISLLC standards have been shrouded in the mantle of objective science, research, and the ?knowledge? produced it. The standards represent current beliefs and practices, some of which are research based in the old social science, and others which are little more than vague expressions of faith. As such they are hardly the platform upon which to construct a national licensure exam to certify school administrators (English, 2003, pp. 121 ? 123). To English (2003) and those who share his viewpoint like Robert Hoyle, Betty Steffy, and Robert Larson, the standards are less the product of new thinking than they are a m?lange of ideas and beliefs that reflects the assumptions of a paradigm that dialectic era advocates proclaimed were from the positivist and behaviorist era and the 69 standards constitute a framework by which a select hierarchy of academics and state educational officials are co-conspirators in furthering their shared goal of exerting greater degrees of control over how school leaders are prepared and how they will be assessed in the field (Bedard & Aitken, 2004). Leithwood and Steinbach (2003) may be viewed as sympathetic yet scathing critics of the first generation of five sets of standards: ? On many different grounds, these standards should be considered on ?life support.? If something is not done soon, the plug will be pulled and the standards will vanish along with the purposes for which they were designed? (p. 232). They urge further work on the standards to develop a second generation of leadership standards and argue for the adoption of seven standards to improve the impressive yet inadequate set of standards currently in place (Leithwood & Steinbach, 2003). Setting Standards for Principals Principals? top priority should be leadership for learning (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2000). School systems need clear, functional performance standards for what principals should be able to do in order to lead schools that foster all students? high academic achievement. This may be the most crucial step in any systemic effort to develop outstanding leadership across a school system (Kaplan, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005). In 1994, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) joined a consortium to develop 70 standards to define and guide school leaders? practice. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) produced the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders in 1996 (CCSSO, 1996). Not meant to be all-inclusive, these standards focus on indicators of knowledge, dispositions, and performances important to effective school leadership ? learning, teaching, and the success of all students (Kaplan et al, 2005). Although traditionally the principal focus was managerial and administrative, the ISLLC framework redefines school leadership to reflect principals? present leadership role that centers on enhancing teaching and learning and creating powerful learning environments. As Murphy and Shipman (2002) noted, ISLLC?s goal was to rebuild and reculture schooling?s leadership infrastructure. At least 35 states have adopted the ISLLC standards and use them to guide policy and practice related to principal preparation (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Moreover, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has scaffolded the ISLLC standards into their accreditation process for educational administration programs. Various principal preparation programs have put ISLLC standards into their principal training programs (Murphy, 2001). Educational Testing Services (ETS) (2000) developed the complementary School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) to assess beginning principal candidates and 15 states have adopted this test as part of their licensure requirements. The ISLLC standards have dawn criticism. Some opponents suggest that the standards are not anchored in rigorous research or a professional knowledge base, that they overly reinforce the status quo, and that they lack enough specificity or operational guidance to help school leaders use them for action (Achilles & Price, 2001; English, 71 2000; Hale & Moorman, 2003). Achilles and Price (2001) reported that several critics, however, ?agree with ISLLC ? that knowing and being able to use effective leadership skills?are key elements in being able to put in place programs and practices that work for children? (p. 12). English (2000) argued that some of the ISLLC standards are somewhat ambiguous, not research based, and not empirically supportable. He added that the ISLLC model does not describe the only way to exercise educational leadership. Murphy (2000), as one of the original ISLLC designers, agreed that the standards warrant further study, but claims that English?s assessment of the standards is inaccurate, asserting that the standards are a ?framework for action, not an encyclopedia? (p. 412). As a framework for action, the SLLA, which is based on these standards, may not discriminate among students from vastly different principal preparation programs and may be culturally biased (Kaplan, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005). Development of ISLLC Standards In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) published Leaders for America?s Schools, widely acknowledged as a pivotal document that called for reform in preparing educational leaders (McCarthy, 1999; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). The report blasted recruitment practices, inattention to instructional leadership, shoddy professional development, low licensure standards, and inattention to real-world problems and experience. The commission called for shutting down educational leadership programs in colleges and universities nationwide if they 72 lacked the resources or commitment to provide the excellence called for by the commission (NCEE, 1983). About the same time, the Danforth Foundation sponsored two influential projects, the Danforth Principal Preparation Program and the Danforth Professors Program. The programs involved 22 universities and stressed clinical experience, field mentorships, intellectual and moral development, and heavy recruitment of women and minorities among practicing classroom teachers (McCarthy, 1999). The NCEEA report sparked creation of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), which published two reports of its own: Improving the Preparation of School Administration: An Agenda for Reform (1989), and Alternative Certification for School Leaders (1990). These, too, recommended revising core curricula to emphasize instructional practice and ethics, raising standards for licensure and rectification, and relying more heavily on clinical experience and other forms of field- based preparation (Hoacher, Alt, & Beltranena, 2001). In the early 1990s, NPBEA developed accreditation standards that addressed four major areas: strategic leadership, organizational leadership, instructional leadership, and political and community leadership (Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 1995). The National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) adopted these standards. Preparation programs desiring NCATE accreditation now must demonstrate attention to developing a shared school vision focused on teaching and learning, understanding assessment and the role of data in decision-making, and grounding leaders in a strong understanding of curriculum and instructional practices (Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranea, 2001). In addition, students in accredited educational- 73 administration programs must demonstrate that they can implement useful professional development for teachers and administrators, manage school resources and obtain additional support, use technology to enrich curriculum and instruction, create and implement strategies for harnessing community support, and communicate goals via the media (Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 1995). Building further on these efforts, NPBEA, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers and with support from the Pew Charitable Trust and the Danforth Foundation, established the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). ISLLC promulgated standards to underscore the centrality of student learning in leadership preparation programs (SREB, 2001b). Figure One briefly shows major national educational organizations and their roles in the development of ISLLC Standards. Figure 1 UCEA NCEEA ? Major research universities with * Publications include A doctoral program in educational Nation at Risk and Leaders leadership for America?s Schools ? Mission is to improve preparation * Some researchers of educational leaders and promote associated with NCEEA the development of professional include Terrell Bell, David knowledge in school improvement Gardner, and Arthur Levin and administration ? Some researchers association with UCEA are Michelle Young, Patrick Forsyth, Scott Norton, Lars Bjork, Kenneth Leithwood, and Marsha McCarthy. UCEA and NCEEA join forces to provide collective action on the challenges, opportunities, and problems confronting the field of school leadership. 74 NPBEA ? 10 organizations with major interests in school administration which include AACTE, AASA, ASCD, CCSSO, NAESP, NASSP, NCATE, NCPEA, NSBA, and UCEA ISLLC ? 24 states (most members of NPBEA) and other stakeholders ? Developed Standards for School Leaders ? Some researchers association with ISLLC are Raymond Rechone, Neil Shipman, Scott Thompson, Ramey Seldon, and Joseph Murphy ? Housed at CCSSO INTASC ? Developed Standards for Teachers ? Housed at CCSSO Development of ELCC Standards In 1988, 10 national associations interested in combining their energy and influence to become more effective in implementing improvements for education founded the National Policy Board of Educational Administration (NPBEA) (NPBEA, 2002). These associations, representing groups concerned about educational leadership and policy, included the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of School Business Officials (ASBO), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), and University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) (NPBEA, 2002). 75 The purpose of the NPBEA as stated in it Bylaws is to advance the professional standards of educational administration through collective action (NPBEA, 2002). In July of 1993, its Board of Directors articulated two new major goals: develop common and higher standards for the state licensure of principals, and develop a common set of guidelines for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for advanced programs in educational leadership. The objective of this second goal was to provide consistent criteria for preparing candidates for a broad range of leadership roles (NPBEA, 2002). The NPBEA appointed a Working Group of representatives from AACTE, AASA, ASCD, NAESP, NASSP, NCPEA, and UCEA to develop common NCATE Guidelines for educational leaders. Over the next year, the Working Group met several times, sent the Guidelines out for review by universities, state agencies, and educational associations and then presented a final draft to the NPBEA and the Special Areas Studies Board (SASB) of NCATE (NPBEA, 2002). The NCATE-approved 1995 Guidelines for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership were formulated from several publications developed by national associations and regional bodies that described what principals, superintendents, supervisors, and curriculum directors needed to know and be able to do (NPBEA, 2002). These documents included: Professional Standards for the Superintendency, published by AASA in 1993, Proficiencies for Principals, K-8, published by NAESP in 1988 and revised in 1991, Principals For Our Changing Schools: The Knowledge and Skill Base, published by NPBEA in 1993, Proposed NCATE Curriculum Guidelines for the Specialty Area of Educational Leadership, published by ASCD in 1993, and Framework for the Continual 76 Professional Development of Administrators, published by Region 1 of Department of Education and the Northeast States in 1993. Also incorporated as resources were two assessment structures: The Administrator Diagnostics Inventory, released by NAESP in 1985, and Principals Assessment Center, developed by NASSP in 1980. According to NPBEA, each of the documents is research-based (NPBEA, 2002), includes extensive citations, involves multiple authors, and features broad participation by representatives from higher education and secondary and elementary education (NPBEA, 2002). Conclusion Over the past two decades there have been changes in the educational leadership profession and in the programs that prepare education leaders. Each initiative tends to support and play out the thinking of the day (Murphy, 2001). The current trend toward standards has found its way into administrator preparation programs and school system administrators look to the efforts of such initiatives as the ISLLC and ELLC standards to strengthen the profession and focus administrator preparation programs on those areas that lead to effective leadership and student achievement. Professional organizations of school leaders, such as the American Association of School Administrators, the University Council for Educational Administration, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, have helped craft existing guidelines; are given a formal seat at the table by organizations, such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; and are hesitant about steps that will reduce their access (Hess, 2001). The officials who control certification and licensure in 77 state departments of education define their professional roles as the gatekeepers of the profession; they are welded to the current system and have no incentive to change it (Hess & Kelley, 2004). Although the alignment of interests in the administrator preparation and licensure debate is similar to that of the teacher quality fight, the politics of administration reform have played out differently. In the case of administrative preparation, the battle has been more similar to punching a pillow than joining a culture war; existing training programs have been much quicker to acknowledge the failings of the status quo and to embrace the need for change (Rotherham & Mead, 2004). Since the 2003 publication of the Better Leaders for Better Schools: A Manifesto, by Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, the criticisms of reform have become heated. In a critique published by the UCEA, Fenwick English asserts that the Manifesto plays ?fast and loose with the facts? (English & Eaves, 2004, p. 84) and is ?outright discriminatory against women? (English & Eaves, 2004, p. 80), adding that it?s supposed author, Chester E. Finn, Jr., has reaped considerable financial rewards from his efforts to ?disestablish public education? (English & Eaves, 2004, p. 55). Ted Kowalski?s (2004) UCEA essay calls the Manifesto a ?recent escalation in a long-term battle waged by forces committed to making school administrators domesticated government employees? (p. 92). Michelle Young, Executive Director of UCEA, has admitted that ?in order to move forward ? in order to build programs that support leadership learning ? we must rethink and revise our practice in several areas? (Young & Kochan, 2004, p. 1). The proponents of traditional preparation programs, although adopting the language of reform, have pursued a strategy of occupation rather than contentment (Hess & Kelley, 78 2005). The new non-profit and for-profit providers, which are hindered by political and statutory barriers, have found it difficult to drive systematic change. The initially imposing wave of reform generated by the powerful storm of dissatisfaction with existing practice appears to have had only limited impact (Hess & Kelley, 2005). Most reformers with an institutional interest in the issue have been appeased by slight changes that provide them with increased opportunity and flexibility, whereas only a handful of individuals lacking much in the way of institutional resources have continued to call for more change (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2003; Hess & Kelley, 2005). 79 V. STANDARDS FOR ALABAMA SCHOOL LEADERS: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCES Abstract In the recent past, Alabama used the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards to support the preparation, development, and evaluation of school leaders. According to the Alabama State Department of Education, the ISLLC Standards are general in nature and do not address the specific needs of Alabama school leaders (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). A Task Force was created to determine what would be important for Alabama school leaders to know and be able to do; research the best in national leadership standards, the standards of other states, and the most current research; and to create a draft standards document for approval by the State Board of Education. The Task Force completed a draft standards document which addresses eight leadership standards and contains indicators under each standard that specify what a leader would know and be able to do if he or she meets the standard. The document was correlated with the state assessment process, other national standards, and standards documents from 22 other states. A Code of Ethics was developed as part of the eighth standard. The eight standards address the following: Planning for Continuous Improvement, Teaching and Learning, Human Resource Development, Diversity, Community and Stakeholder Relationships, Technology, Management of the Learning 80 Organization, and Ethics. This article investigates the process the Alabama State Department of Education used in appointing the Task Force, and the process the Task Force used in developing standards for Alabama School Leaders. The article also investigates the role national and professional organizations played in the development of those standards. The researcher used an historical research approach when analyzing public domain and archival documents. The researcher has twenty years of experience as an educator - fourteen of those years as a school administrator. The researcher served in a leadership position in the Governor?s Congress on School Leadership for the State of Alabama. He, along with Decatur City Schools? Superintendent Dr. Sam Houston, co-chaired the task force that developed Alabama?s Standards for Instructional Leaders, which sparked his interest in the topic of this dissertation. In this study, the researcher analyzed large blocks of texts and made judgments about the meanings of contiguous blocks of text. The researcher read each document line-by-line to identify themes related to the topic being studied. During the line-by-line reading, the researcher marked up collected documents with different colored translucent markers, as well as placing his own comments in the margins, to reflect the general categories into which he placed the documents. The researcher made notes of the comments that fall under these categories on different-colored sticky notes with each colored note representing a different concept or category. In accordance with the qualitative data analysis process developed by Denzin and Lincoln (2003), data from documents and other materials were organized, broken down into manageable units, synthesized, organized into themes, and placed in code categories. The documents were 81 hand-coded for key phrases, descriptors, and explanations, according to the code categories. From this study, the researcher discovered that in order for Alabama to effectively prepare school leaders, its policymakers recognized that most leadership policies and regulations in their state were developed years ago and cannot produce the kind of leaders needed by schools today. Further, because so much of the recruitment, training, and professional development of principals happens in local districts and communities, Alabama policymakers must be strategic about how they intervene in the system of leadership development. Alabama policymakers determined where they have the most leverage?and where they can exert the strongest influence?is in how principals are certified or licensed, prepared for practice, and provided additional training to improve their skills. 82 Introduction If improving educational leadership is a major obstacle to accelerating the pace of school improvement in the United States (SREB, 2001), it is not because the issue has been neglected in the last decade or two (Hoachlande, Alt, & Beltranena, 2001). There has been no shortage of national commissions, critical scholarship or demonstration programs (SREB, 2001). In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) published Leaders for America?s Schools, widely acknowledged as a pivotal document that called for reform in preparing educational leaders (McCarthy, 1999; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). The report blasted recruitment practices, inattention to instructional leadership, shoddy professional development, low licensure standards and inattention to real-world problems and experience. The commission called for shutting down 300 of the approximately 500 educational leadership programs in colleges and universities nationwide, saying that they lacked the resources or commitment to provide the excellence called for by the commission (McCarthy, 1999; Murphy & Forsyth, 1999). About this same time, the Danforth Foundation sponsored two influential projects, the Danforth Principal Preparation Program and the Danforth Professors Program. The programs involved 22 universities and stressed clinical experience, field mentorships, intellectual and moral development, and heavy recruitment of women and minorities among practicing classroom teachers (McCarthy, 1999). The NCEEA report sparked creation of the National Policy Board of Education Administration (NPBEA), which published two reports of its own: Improving the Preparation of School Administration: An Agenda for Reform (1989) and Alternative 83 Certification for School Leaders (1990). These, too, recommended revising core curricula to emphasize instructional practice and ethics, raising standards for licensure and certification, and relying more heavily on clinical experience and other forms of field- based preparation. In the early 1990s, NPBEA developed accreditation standards that addressed four major areas: strategic leadership, organizational leadership, instructional leadership, and political and community leadership (Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 1995). The National Commission for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) adopted these standards. Preparation programs desiring NCATE accreditation now must ?demonstrate attention to 1) developing a shared school vision focused on teaching and learning; 2) understanding assessment and the role of data in decision-making; and 3) grounding leaders in a strong understanding of curriculum and instructional practices. In addition, students in accredited education-administration programs must demonstrate that they can 1) implement useful professional development for teachers and administrators; 2) manage school resources and obtain additional support; 3) use technology to enrich curriculum and instruction; 4) create and implement strategies for harnessing community support; and 5) communicate goals via the media? (Sanders & Simpson, 2005, p. 29). Building further on these efforts, NPBEA, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers and with support from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Danforth Foundation, established the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). ISLLC promulgated standards to underscore the centrality of student learning in leadership preparation programs. ISLLC specifies that the desirable educational leader ?promotes success for all students by: 84 1. Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the community; 2. Advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and the professional growth of staff members; 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 ethics; and 6. Understanding, responding to and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts? (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996, pages 12 ? 22). To date, the ISLLC standards have been utilized in 34 states, the District of Columbia and three territories (Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). The extent to which these standards have penetrated local hiring and professional development practices is not clear, but they appear to be influencing state licensure procedures (Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). The national education-leadership initiatives of the last 15 years all have exhibited several consistent themes. They all subscribe to the tenet that standards can facilitate change: clarifying what we want leaders to know and be able to do increases the likelihood of getting it (SREB, 2001). They also reflect considerable agreement on what is wanted. They all emphasize the need for instructional leadership ? leaders who balance attention to nurturing instruction with the managerial skills and political acumen that 85 have been the more traditional focus of education leadership (Fink & Brayman, 2004). Each undertaking subscribes to experiential learning (Irwin, 1989), and each one depicts the leadership programs in the nation?s education schools as ?mindlessly dependent on lectures and classroom-based instruction? (SREB, 2001). Most presume, without much evidence, that it would be beneficial to model leadership preparation in education on medical schools? hallmark pedagogical practice: clinical experience (Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranena, 2003). Most call for more diversity in leadership programs and the aggressive recruitment of women and minorities into the ranks of principals and superintendents (Sadker et al, 1991). While most of these themes may be appropriate, there is heated, continuous debate about precisely what the standards should be (Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranena, 2003). One argument is the belief that principals and superintendents should be able to nourish sound curriculum and effective teaching that one may wonder whether attention is being diverted from the more fundamental causes for schools? lack of progress in raising student achievement. While there may be a better word than ?clinical,? which connotes sickroom and disease, experiential and problem-based learning is viewed by many as a sound instructional practice in universities as well as in elementary and secondary classrooms (SREB, 2001b). Finally, although the last 15 years have seen some improvement in terms of increasing diversity, ?most principals and superintendents still are white men? (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000, p. 1). Others, however, argue that standards concentrate on ?novice leaders? by preparing people to become principals and superintendents (Mandel, 2000). While attention to preparation of the entry level is important, it is clear that concern about 86 educational leadership has as much, if not more, to do with the quality of mature principals, superintendents and policy-makers (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000). Relatively ?little attention has been paid to strategies for further developing educational leaders once they have met the requirements for initial licensure or certification? (Mandel, 2000, p. 43). American Board for Leadership in Education (ABLE), which was a joint initiative by several organizations including the American Association of School Administrators, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the National Association for Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, with the endorsement of the national Policy Board for Education Administration, seeks to address the need for ongoing development of leaders (Mandel 2000). Modeling its proposal on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), this group advocates developing advanced standards that would define exemplary practice among experienced school administrators and would develop a system for encouraging recognition of these practices and for getting other educational leaders to adopt them (NPBEA, 2001). Like its predecessors, NBPTS attempts to define standards of knowledge and competence for those entrusted with educating the nation?s young people. But, also like its predecessors, it focuses on the ends, not the means for achieving them. All of the hard work in recent years on developing standards, for curriculum and teaching as well as administration, has been based on the implicit but powerful presumption that standards can drive change (Mandel 2000). These efforts assume that if we clarify what we want, it will happen. Standards may be necessary for improvement; they are unlikely, however, to 87 be sufficient (McCarthy, 1999). And while there is growing consensus on the ends, there is much less agreement on the means (Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranena, 2003). Despite a lack of consensus on the means, Kenneth Leithwood (2004) summarizes the starting points for a major new effort to better understand the links between leadership and student achievement. There seems little doubt that both district and school leadership provides a critical bridge between most educational reform initiatives and their consequences for students (Clarke, 2005). Of all the factors that contribute to what students learn at school, present evidence led Leithwood to the conclusion that ?leadership is second in strength only to classroom instruction? (Leithwood, 1992, p 62). Furthermore, ?effective leadership has the greatest impact in those circumstances in which it is most needed, i.e., schools continually ?in trouble? on state assessments? (Leithwood, 1992, p 63). Leithwood also concluded ?superintendents and principals are likely still the most influential? (Leithwood, 1992 p. 63). Efforts to improve their recruitment, training, evaluation, and ongoing development should be considered highly cost-effective approaches to successful school improvement (Biester, 1984; Waters, T. et al, 2003; Leithwood et al, 2004). In an era of higher standards and accountability for better results, it is critical that schools have leaders who are prepared to do what is necessary to improve teaching and learning (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). However, Southern Regional Education Board?s (SREB) research on the progress universities are making in redesigning their educational leadership programs suggests that few programs concentrate on helping aspiring school leaders ?master the explicit knowledge and skills 88 they need for leading change in school curriculum and instructional practices? (SREB, 2001, p. 11). Even when states have adopted new leadership standards emphasizing instructional leadership or launched systemwide program reconstitution efforts, the actual changes in programs often are not sharply focused in this direction (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). The amount of new content and emphasis on curriculum and instruction are slight, at best, and field-based experiences are not dramatically restructured to provide aspiring principals practice in working with teachers to change school and classroom practices in ways that increase student achievement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). For the most part, graduates of the ?redesigned programs? are taught the same old content, given the same assignments, and assessed in the same ways as before. The result: newly prepared principals are no more able to do the work that schools most need them to do than the pre-redesign generation of graduates (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Redesigning leadership preparation may be a direct pathway to better schools, but it is vitally important that states not waste their efforts on implementing piecemeal strategies or flawed plans for redesign (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). States must begin with the goal of every school having leadership that improves schools and increases student achievement (Miller, 2003). To reach this goal, they must create a seamless system of leadership recruitment and selection, preparation, certification, induction, professional development, and supportive working conditions that focuses on a vision of school leaders as instructional leaders. By addressing these six components together rather than fixing one at a time, states may reap the benefits of a 89 systemic approach to achieving their goal ? deeper, more lasting and more pervasive change in school leadership that results in increased student achievement in a great number of schools, within a shorter period of time (Miller, 2003). Evolution of Alabama?s Approach to School Leadership Reform States can be key actors in the enactment of educational leadership. The role of states in determining local educational policies and practices has been controversial for at least the past 150 years, and each state has a long legacy of contested terrain on the question of local versus state control (Tyack & James, 1986). Currently, the focus on state standards and accountability systems is driving local decisions and policies in ways that are unprecedented (Leithwood et al, 2004). In addition, the funding of local school districts has, in many states, shifted increasingly to the state, while in others it remains a largely local responsibility. Whether funding is state or local, changes in state economies also drive many local decisions, as superintendents and principals grapple with day-to- day dilemmas over resource allocation. How these two enduring trends are managed, both at the state and local levels, is also determined by the state?s ?political culture? ? a term that is frequently applied, but rarely studied and explicated, except in the area of recent welfare reform (Brace & Jewett, 1995; Fitzpatrick & Hero, 1988). Changes in the state role were stimulated by the 1983 federal commission report, A Nation at Risk, whose basic message about the failures of public education has had a profound impact on the way we think about education. The commission?s recommendations were quickly picked up by the media (Bracy, 2003), by advocates of outcomes-based education (Rubin & Spady, 1984), and by educational reformers who 90 saw its call for more rigorous curricular content and attention to what students know as consistent with their own efforts (Romberg, 1993; Wiggins, 1991). In addition, civil rights advocates argued that clearer standards were a possible solution to the problem of low quality education for minority students (Abrams, 1985), and that standards could be used to demand opportunity to learn (Porter, 1993) in legal cases. Other scholars accepted the call for higher levels of professional practice and teacher accountability, as well as internal regulation by the teaching profession itself (Darling-Hammond, 1989), although they argued against the negative assessment of the national report and against coercive assessment (Porter, 1989). This initial premise of the standards reform movement was quickly translated in some states to a more systematic approach that covered teacher preparation, teacher evaluation, school assessment, and student assessment. A second development, emerging in the early 1990s, focused on the ?high stakes? elements of educational policy, or the use of sanctions and rewards associated with how well the school/teacher/student performed. The public and many educators agreed that accountability based on results was a good idea (Hannaway, 2003). The emergence of high-stakes assessments and accountability has been more controversial in the scholarly community. Aside from the measurement debates (Baker, 2002; Linn, 2000), discussion has focused on the way in which the accountability movement will affect students, teachers, schools, and administrators. Many argue that poor students, immigrants, or students with disabilities will suffer under high-stakes testing environments (McNeil, 2000; Meier, 2002; Reyes & Rorrer, 2001; Stecher & Hamilton, 2002). Although knowledge about how local educators, including 91 administrators, are reacting to the new standards legislation is limited (Kelley, Kimball, & Conley, 2000; Winkler, 2002), scholars argue that the legislation will reduce professionalism and promote rigid and limited implementation of the standards (Hilliard, 2000; Miller, 2002; Schrag, 1995; Stake, 1999). While policy researchers generally see a complex picture of the efforts of state accountability systems, they still caution that there are many potential negative consequences (Firestone & Shipps, 2003; Levy & Murnane, 2001; O?Day, 2002). Empirical evidence on all of these topics is limited and hotly debated (Skrla & Scheurich, 2004). Educational reform initiatives in the State of Alabama centers on using achievement tests to hold teachers, schools, districts, and administrators accountable for their performance and as the impetus for improving performance. Any analysis of the impact of state standards on the quality and effectiveness of educational leaders must acknowledge the primacy of these initiatives. Interestingly, growth in state standards in the past two decades has not resulted in a uniform set of standards for school leaders. There are differences among states, as they have their own discretion in choosing standards, dispositions, key indicators, and actors. Development of Alabama?s Standards As a result of research on school leadership conducted by the Alabama State Department of Education and SREB and the completion of a Wallace Foundation Grant, Alabama Governor Bob Riley and Alabama State Superintendent Joseph B. Morton convened the Governor?s Congress on School Leadership in Montgomery, Alabama on November 30, 2004. Over 250 delegates from education and business were in attendance. 92 One hundred selected delegates were invited to participate in five task forces to address the issues pertaining to the development of school leadership in Alabama schools. Task force members included participants from K ? 12, higher education, Alabama State Department of Education, education foundations and agencies, professional associations, business, and other selected community leaders. The Eight-Step Process The State of Alabama adopted an eight-step process to create a new educational leadership system that would enumerate the essential actions and building blocks for initiating and supporting a systematic leadership redesign initiative (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Each step is presented in the following section. Step One Alabama adopted authorizing legislation for a systemic leadership re-design initiative (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). In the Alabama State Department of Education?s Final Report of the Governor?s Congress (2005) the authorizing legislation was specific as to purpose and intents, such as ? Making districts partners with universities in the preparation of school leaders. ? Redesigning programs for preparing school leaders ? principals, assistant principals, superintendents, district staff and others ? to give stronger emphasis to developing the essential competencies for improving schools and increasing student achievement. ? Creating a licensing structure in which the professional license is based on evidence that school leaders can improve schools and increase student achievement. 93 ? Providing a new principal induction program that focuses on continued professional development, and includes coaching and mentoring. ? Providing a state leadership academy or other professional development process that strengthens current school leaders? capacity to work with faculty in changing school and classroom practices and increasing student achievement. ? Providing school leaders with working conditions that make it possible for them to implement strong instructional leadership that improves teaching and learning for all students. Responsibility for selecting and organizing a commission or coordinating council was identified in the legislation, along with the particular entities to be represented and a process for how a chairperson would be designated. Step Two Alabama appointed a three-year coordinating council to formulate policy recommendations, develop a plan for the redesign initiative, coordinate the efforts of various entities engaged in the work, and provide oversight of the implementation process and its outcomes. In the first year, the coordinating council held hearings, collected information through task forces, recommended policy changes, and formulated a plan for redesigning the components of the educational leadership system in accordance with the new policies (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). In years two and three, the council oversaw the implementation of the new policies by working with appropriate entities to get these incorporated into rules and procedures. Actions in subsequent years will involve funding requests to the legislature as deemed necessary to fully implement the new 94 system and monitor implementation and the results produced by the new system (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Membership on the council included a representative with decision-making responsibilities from at least five state-level entities including: the state department of education; the office of higher education; the professional standards commission/board; the professional organization for school/district administrators; and the business community (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Additional members of the council included a superintendent from both a large and a small school district; a legislator from both the House and the Senate who have demonstrated a keen interest in school leadership; a university president, dean, and leadership department head or professor who are progressive and recognized as leaders in the state; a representative from the state association of school administrators; and others who are deemed essential constituents (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). According to Alabama?s State Department?s Final Report of the Governor?s Congress (2005) the coordinating council served as the vehicle to bring representatives from these entities to the table to work as a team to achieve the state?s goal. Criteria for selection of the commission?s chairperson included a recognized state leader respected by the legislative and professional communities; strong interest in leadership; ability to influence others with diverse interests in leadership to embrace the initiative; and ability to manage meetings and communicate the outcomes to appropriate constituents. The council established a task force on each of the key components of a seamless leadership preparation and development system (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). This strategy enlarged the circle of ownership and brought to the 95 surface useful and diverse perspectives from key stakeholder groups. Five task forces were formed. Each of the following areas were assigned to the five task forces: standards; selection and preparation; certification; induction and professional development; and working conditions for leaders. The membership of the five task forces were selected by consensus of the council and represented a balance of members from the various stakeholder groups, which included current principals and assistant principals; teachers; college of education deans and faculty; superintendents; key state department and office of higher education personnel; professional organization staff or members, including but not limited to the state associations for school administrators, school boards, and teachers; business community representatives; and legislators with a strong interest in educational leadership (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Each task force was charged with developing sound recommendations for changes in their assigned component that are necessary to align it with the state?s goal of providing school leaders who can improve schools and increase student achievement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). The work of each task force required a number of independent meetings, as well as one or more joint task force meetings to ensure cross-component alignment needed to create a seamless system. According to the State Department of Education?s Final Report of the Governor?s Congress (2005) the Alabama State Department of Education contracted the assistance of an external agency, SREB, to provide information and technical assistance to each task force. SREB is America's first interstate compact for education. The Southern Regional Education Board is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps government and 96 education leaders in its 16 member states work together to advance education and improve the social and economic life of the region. Member states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia (ETS, 2000). Step Three The council received, reviewed, and revised the recommendations of task forces as deemed necessary, and prepared a set of policy recommendations and a plan for implementing the policies when adopted. A report including the recommendations for changes in standards and policies and the implementation plan was prepared and presented to the legislature by the council at the time specified in the authorizing legislation (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Step Four The council translated the new state standards and policies into implementation rules and procedures that should accomplish the intent of the authorizing legislation. State agencies responsible for issuing licenses and approving leadership preparation and development programs must now revise evaluation criteria and procedures (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Local school districts must, in collaboration with the appropriate state agencies and other entities, revise the principal?s job description; develop high-quality induction and professional development programs; revise performance evaluation criteria and procedures; and create working conditions to ensure that school leaders receive the support they need to improve schools and raise student achievement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). 97 Step Five The council developed and disseminated redesign conditions and frameworks that clearly described for entities offering leadership preparation and development programs what they are expected to do and what the new programs are to look like when they are redesigned in accordance with new state policies and standards (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). For example, the redesign framework for selection and preparation of school leaders should include, as a minimum, state-adopted standards that explicitly address the essential competencies for improving schools and increasing student achievement that principals are expected to demonstrate and use routinely in leading schools. The framework should also include explicit conditions and criteria for redesign that can be expected to drive the desired changes in all state-approved educational leadership programs, a curriculum framework that is aligned with state standards, and provides an appropriate balance between management skills development and preparation for instructional leadership, while incorporating research-based school improvement strategies and practices of leaders that have the greatest impact on student learning outcomes. In the beginning, the State of Alabama concentrated its efforts on the instructional leadership domain of the curriculum framework, leaving other domains for future work (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Step Six The council developed and implemented a support system for universities and districts that work together to redesign leadership programs. According to the Alabama 98 State Department of Education?s Final Report of the Governor?s Congress (2005), the support system incorporated the following features: ? Strong support and incentives for change in the leadership program that come from high-level administrators in the university ? Orientation for university administrators and faculty and district superintendents and staff that focuses on the state?s leadership goals, standards, conditions for redesign and research-based curriculum framework, and the redesign initiative. ? Structured opportunities for design teams representing all universities to discuss issues, share new information, and benchmark progress on redesign. ? A plan that clearly defines key activities, timelines, processes, resources, products, and outcomes. ? On-site consultation and assistance from an external entity not responsible for state program evaluation and approval. ? Additional resources of time, new faculty, funding, materials, and access to external expertise. ? Study teams ? comprising university faculty, school and district practitioners, state agency staff, and business community representatives ? to develop viable solutions to high-priority redesign issues. ? Access to exemplary curriculum materials that provide explicit examples of how the state?s standards, conditions, and research-based curriculum framework can be translated into new courses with new content, new instructional methods, problem-solving assignments, and rigorous assessments of progress in mastering essential competencies for improving schools and increasing student achievement. 99 Step Seven The council developed and implemented an external curriculum audit process to evaluate and provide feedback to leadership departments on the degree to which program content, assignments, assessments, and field experiences have been redesigned to meet the state?s new standards, conditions for redesign, and curriculum framework, especially those parts of these that relate to instructional leadership. According to the Alabama State Department of Education?s Final Report on the Governor?s Congress (2005), this process included using identified criteria and procedures to select a panel of auditors, developing processes for analyzing course content, academic and field-based assignments, field experiences, and performance assessments and determining the extent to which they align with the state standards, conditions for redesign, and curriculum framework training auditors to ? Recognize what the content, assignments, field experiences, and assessments look like when present in a redesigned preparation program, ? Select an appropriate sample of assignments and student work for review, apply the standard analysis processes to the sample assignments with accuracy and fairness, ? Use data from the analyses and professional judgment to reach consensus on whether assignments are, on the whole, designed to bring participants to proficiency on the leadership competencies that have the greatest impact on student achievement and to identify specific strengths and weaknesses. 100 According to the Final Report on The Governor?s Congress published by the Alabama State Department of Education (2005), the process also included convening audit teams for each program to ? Conduct analyses of selected samples of the academic and field-based assignments given to participants and the quality of student work/performance that results, especially in courses designed to teach the essential competencies of instructional leadership. ? Examine field-based experiences to determine the extent to which they incorporate a continuum of observing, participating in, and leading work in schools, especially activities that focus on changing school and classroom practices and increasing student learning. ? Evaluate the assessments administered throughout the program to determine the degree to which they assess and provide feedback to participants on their progress in mastering the leadership competencies incorporated in state standards and the curriculum framework, especially those that have the greatest impact on student achievement. An additional goal of the council was to provide explicit feedback to leadership departments to assist faculty in identifying strengths and weaknesses in their programs and making decisions about needed improvements (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Step Eight The council developed and implemented guidelines to assist universities and districts to co-construct a preparation program accountability process that holds both 101 partners accountable for preparing principals who know how to improve schools and raise student achievement. The process required both the university and the district to gather and use data on leader performance, school performance, and student performance in schools led by program graduates to determine the overall quality of the program and its graduates (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Task Force One: Standards for Preparing and Developing Principals as Instructional Leaders In the past, Alabama has used the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards to support the preparation, development, and evaluation of school leaders. The ISLLC Standards are general in nature and do not address the specific needs of Alabama school leaders (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Task Force One: Standards for Preparing and Developing Principals as Instructional Leaders had as its main tasks to determine what would be important for Alabama school leaders to know and be able to do, research the best in national leadership standards, the standards of other states, and the most current research, and to create a draft standards document for approval by the Alabama State Board of Education (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). The draft document submitted by Task Force One addressed eight leadership standards and contained indicators under each standard that identify what a leader would know and be able to do if he or she meets the standard. The document has been correlated with the state assessment process, other national standards, and standards documents from 22 other states (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). A Code of Ethics 102 has also been developed as part of standard eight (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). The Alabama Educator Code of Ethics has been designed to serve as a guide to ethical conduct and protects the health, safety, and general welfare of students and educators; outlines objective standards of conduct for professional educators; and clearly defines actions for which disciplinary sanctions are justified. The eight standards address planning for continuous improvement, teaching and learning, human resources development, diversity, community and stakeholder relationships, technology, management of the learning organization, and ethics. Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders To realize the mission of enhancing school leadership among principals and administrators in Alabama, resulting in improved academic achievement for all students, instructional leaders will be held to the following standards (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005): Standard 1: Planning for Continuous Improvement Rationale This standard addresses the need to prepare instructional leaders who value and are committed to educating all students to become successful adults. Each instructional leader is responsible for creating and articulating a vision of high expectations for learning within the school or district that can be shared by all employees and is supported by the broader school-community of parents and citizens. This requires that instructional leaders be willing to examine their own assumptions, beliefs, and practices; understand and apply research; and foster a culture of continuous improvement among all members 103 of the educational staff. Such instructional leaders will commit themselves to high levels of personal and organizational performance in order to ensure implementation of this vision of learning. Standard An instructional leader engages the school community in developing and maintaining a shared vision; plans effectively; uses critical thinking and problem-solving techniques; collects, analyzes, and interprets data; allocates resources; and evaluates results for the purpose of continuous school improvement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Key Indicators 1. Leads the articulation, development and implementation of a shared vision and strategic plan for the school that places student and faculty learning at the center 2. Leads and motivates staff, students and families to achieve the school?s vision 3. Aligns instructional objectives and curricular goals with the shared vision 4. Allocates and guards instruction time for the achievement of goals 5. Works with faculty to identify instructional and curricular needs that align with vision and resources 6. Interacts with the community concerning the school?s vision, mission and priorities 7. Works with staff and others to establish and accomplish goals 8. Relates the vision, mission and goals to the instructional needs of students 9. Uses goals to manage activities 104 10. Uses a variety of problem-solving techniques and decision-making skills to resolve problems 11. Delegates tasks clearly and appropriately to accomplish organizational goals 12. Focuses upon student learning as a driving force for curriculum, instruction, and institutional decision-making 13. Has a process for gathering information to use when making decisions 14. Creates a school leadership team that is skillful in using data 15. Uses multiple sources of data to manage the accountability process 16. Assesses student progress using a variety of techniques and information 17. Monitors and assesses instructional programs, activities and materials 18. Uses approved methods and principles of program evaluation in the school improvement process 19. Uses diagnostic tools to assess, identify and apply instructional improvement 20. Uses external resources as sources for ideas for improving student achievement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard 2: Teaching and Learning Rationale This standard addresses the need for instructional leaders to establish teaching and learning as the focal point of schools. It accepts the proposition that all students can learn given enough high quality instruction, and that student learning is the fundamental purpose of schools. To this end, instructional leaders are responsible for ensuring that decisions about curriculum, instructional strategies (including instructional technology), assessment, and professional development are based on sound research, best practices, 105 school and district data, and other contextual information and that observation and collaboration are used to design meaningful and effective experiences that improve student achievement. Successful instructional leaders must be able to identify, clarify, and address barriers to student learning and communicate the importance of developing learning strategies for diverse populations. In addition, this standard requires that instructional leaders be learners who model and encourage life-long learning. They should establish a culture of high expectations for themselves, their students, and their staff (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard An instructional leaders promotes and monitors the success of all students in the learning environment by collaboratively aligning the curriculum, by aligning the instruction and the assessment processes to ensure effective student achievement; and by using a variety of benchmarks, learning expectations and feedback measures to ensure accountability (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Key Indicators 1. Plans for the achievement of annual learning gains, school improvement goals, and other targets related to the shared vision 2. Uses multiple sources of data to plan and assess instructional improvement 3. Engages staff in ongoing study and implementation of research-based practices 4. Uses the latest research, applied theory, and best practices to make curricular and instructional decisions 5. Communicates high expectations and standards for the academic and social development of students 106 6. Ensures that content and instruction are aligned with high standards, resulting in improved student achievement 7. Coaches staff and teachers on the evaluation of student performance 8. Identifies differentiated instructional strategies to meet the needs of a variety of student populations 9. Develops curriculum aligned to state standards 10. Collaborates with community, staff, district, state and university personnel to develop the instructional program 11. Aligns curriculum, instructional practices and assessments to district, state and national standards 12. Focuses upon student learning as a driving force for curriculum, instruction, and instructional decision-making 13. Uses multiple sources of data to manage the accountability process 14. Assesses student progress using a variety of formal and informal assessments 15. Monitors and assesses instructional programs, activities and materials 16. Uses the methods and principles of program evaluation in the school improvement process Standard 3: Human Resources Development Rationale This standard addresses the need for instructional leaders to recognize quality professional development as the key strategy for supporting significant improvements. Instructional leaders are able to articulate the critical link between improved student learning and the professional learning of teachers. Skillful instructional leaders establish 107 policies and organizational structures that support ongoing professional learning and continuous improvement. They ensure an equitable distribution of resources to accomplish school goals and continuously improve the school's work through the ongoing evaluation of staff development effectiveness in achieving student learning goals. They make certain that employee annual calendars and daily schedules provide adequate time for learning and collaboration as part of the workday. Instructional leaders also distribute leadership responsibilities among teachers and other employees. Distributed leadership enables teachers to develop and use their talents as members or chairs of school improvement committees, trainers, coaches, mentors, and members of peer review panels. These leaders make certain that their colleagues have the necessary knowledge, skills and other forms of support that ensure success in these new roles (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard An instructional leader recruits, selects, organizes, evaluates, and mentors faculty and staff to accomplish school and system goals; works collaboratively with the school faculty and staff to plan and implement effective professional development, that is based upon student needs and that promotes both individual and organizational growth and leads to improved teaching and learning; initiates and nurtures interpersonal relationships to facilitate teamwork and enhance student achievement (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Key Indicators 1. Sets high expectations and standards for the performance of all teachers and staff 2. Coaches staff and teachers on the evaluation of student performances 108 3. Works collaboratively with teachers to plan for individual professional development 4. Uses a variety of supervisory models to improve teaching and learning 5. Applies adult learning strategies to professional development 6. Uses the accepted methods and principles of personnel evaluation 7. Operates within the provisions of each contract as well as established enforcement and grievance procedures 8. Establishes mentor programs to orient new teachers and provide ongoing coaching and other forms of support for veteran staff 9. Manages, monitors, and evaluates a program of continuous professional development tied to student learning and other school goals 10. Hires and retains high-quality teachers and staff 11. Provides high quality professional development activities to ensure that teachers have skills to engage all students in active learning 12. Provides opportunities for teachers to reflect, plan, and work collaboratively 13. Creates a community of learners among faculty and staff 14. Has a personal professional development plan for his/her own continuous improvement 15. Foster development of aspiring leaders, including teacher leaders Standard 4: Diversity Rationale This standard addresses the need for instructional leaders to understand and be able to operate within the larger context of community and beyond, which affects 109 opportunities for all students. Instructional leaders must respond to and influence this larger political, social, economic, and cultural context. Of vital importance is the ability to develop a continuing dialogue with economic and political decision makers concerning the role of schools and to build collaborative relationships that support improved social and educational opportunities for all children. Instructional leaders must be able to participate actively in the political and policy-making context in the service of education, including proactive use of the legal system to protect students? rights and improve opportunities for all students (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard Responds to and influences the larger personal, political, social, economic, legal and cultural context in the classroom, school, and the local community while addressing diverse student needs to ensure the success of all students. Key Indicators 1. Involves school community in appropriate diversity policy implementations, program planning, and assessment efforts 2. Conforms to legal and ethical standards related to diversity 3. Perceives the needs and concerns of others and is able to deal tactfully with them 4. Handles crisis communications in both oral and written form 5. Arranges for students and families whose home language is not English to engage in school activities and communication through oral and written translations 6. Recruits, hires, develops, and retains a diverse staff 7. Represents the school and the educational establishment in relations with various cultural, ethnic, racial, and special interest groups in the community 110 8. Recognizes and responds effectively to multicultural and ethnic needs in the organization and the community 9. Interacts effectively with diverse individuals and groups using a variety of interpersonal skills in any given situation 10. Promotes and monitors the delivery of instructional content that provides for diverse perspectives appropriate to the situation Standard 5: Community and Stakeholder Relationships Rationale This standard addresses the fact that cooperation among schools, the district, parents, and the larger community is essential to the success of instructional leaders and students. Instructional leaders must see schools as an integral part of the larger community. Collaboration and communication with families, businesses, governmental agencies, social service organizations, the media, and higher education institutions are critical to effective schooling. Effective and appropriate communications, coupled with the involvement of families and other stakeholders in decisions, help to ensure continued community support for schools. Instructional leaders must see families as partners in the education of their youngsters, and believe that families have the best interest of their children in mind. Instructional leaders must involve families in decisions at the school and district levels. Family and student issues that negatively affect student learning must be addressed through collaboration with community agencies that can integrate health, social, and other services. Such collaboration relies on good relationships with community leaders and outreach to a wide array of business, religious, political and service agencies. Providing leadership to programs serving all students, including those 111 with special and exceptional needs, further communicates to internal and external audiences the importance of diversity. To work with all elements of the community, instructional leaders must recognize, value, and communicate effectively with various cultural, ethnic, racial, and special interest groups. Modeling community collaboration for staff and then offering opportunities for staff to develop collaborative skills maximizes positive interactions between schools and the community (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard An instructional leader identifies the unique characteristics of the community to create and sustain mutually supportive family-school-community relations (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Key Indicators 1. Addresses student and family conditions affecting learning 2. Identifies community leaders and their relationships to school goals and programs 3. Communicates the school?s vision, mission and priorities to the community 4. Serves as primary school spokesperson in the community 5. Shares leadership and decision-making with others by gathering input 6. Seeks resources of families, business, and community members in support of the school?s goals 7. Develops partnerships, coalitions, and networks to impact student achievement 8. Actively engages the community to share responsibility for student and school success 112 9. Involves family and community in appropriate policy implementation, program planning, and assessment efforts 10. Makes parents partners in their student?s education Standard 6: Technology Rationale This standard addresses the need for effective leadership for technology in schools. An underlying assumption of this standard is that instructional leaders should be competent users of information and technology tools common to information-age professionals. The effective educational leader should be a hands-on user of technology. While technology empowers instructional leaders by the information it can readily produce and communicate, it exponentially empowers the instructional leader who masters the tools and processes that allow creative and dynamic management of available information. Instructional leaders who recognize the potential of technology understand that leadership has a responsibility to ensure technological equity. They must also know that technology can unlock tremendous potential in learners and staff with special and diverse needs (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard An instructional leader plans, implements, and evaluates the effective integration of current technologies and electronic tools in teaching, management, research, and communication (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Key Indicators 1. Implements a plan for the use of technology, telecommunications and information systems to enrich curriculum, instruction, and assessment 113 2. Develops a plan for technology integration for the school community 3. Discovers practical approaches for developing and implementing successful technology planning 4. Models the use of technology for personal and professional productivity 5. Develops an effective teacher professional development plan to increase technology usage to support curriculum-based integration practices 6. Promotes the effective integration of technology throughout the teaching and learning environment 7. Increases access to educational technologies for the school 8. Provides support for teachers to increase the use of technology already in the school/classrooms 9. Uses technology to support the analysis and use of student assessment data Standard 7: Management of the Learning Organization Rationale This standard addresses the need to enhance student learning through effective, efficient, and equitable utilization of resources. Instructional leaders must use their knowledge of organizations to create a learning environment conducive to the success of all students. Proper allocation of resources such as personnel, facilities, and technology are essential to creating an effective learning environment. Resource management decisions should give priority to teaching, student achievement, and student development. Also, operational procedures and policies must be established to maintain school safety and security and to strengthen the academic environment. All management decisions, including those regarding human resources, fiscal operations, facilities, legal issues, time 114 management, scheduling, technology, and equipment, should be based on sound organizational practice. Instructional leaders must monitor and evaluate operational systems to ensure that they enhance student learning and reflect the school?s and district?s accountability to the community. They also actively seek additional sources of financial, human, and physical support. They involve stakeholders to ensure the management and operational decisions take into consideration the needs of multiple constituencies while at the same time focusing the entire community on student achievement as the ultimate goal. To include stakeholders in management decisions, instructional leaders must be competent in conflict resolution, consensus building, group processes, and effective communication (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). Standard An instructional leader manages the organization, facilities, and financial resources; implements operational plans, and promotes collaboration to create a safe and effective learning environment. Key Indicators 1. Develops and administers policies that provide a safe school environment 2. Applies operational plans and processes to accomplish strategic goals 3. Attends to student learning goals in the daily operation of the school 4. Identifies and analyzes the major sources of fiscal and nonfiscal resources for the school including business and community resources 5. Builds and supports a culture of learning at the school 6. Manages financial and material assets and capital goods and services in order to allocate resources according to school priorities 115 7. Uses an efficient budget planning process that involves staff and community 8. Demonstrates ability to identify and organize resources to achieve curricular and instructional goals 9. Develops techniques and organizational skills necessary to lead/manage a complex and diverse organization 10. Plans and schedules one?s own and others? work so that resources are used appropriately in meeting priorities and goals 11. Uses goals to manage activities 12. Creates and empowers a school leadership team that shares responsibility for the management of the learning organization Standard 8: Ethics Rationale This standard addresses the educational leader?s role as the ?first citizen? of the school/district community. Instructional leaders should set the tone for how employees and students interact with one another and with members of the school, district, and larger community. The leader?s contacts with students, parents, and employees must reflect concern for others as well as for the organization and the position. Instructional leaders must develop the ability to examine personal and professional values that reflect a code of ethics. They must be able to serve as role models, accepting responsibility for using their position ethically and constructively on behalf of the school/district community (Alabama State Department of Education, 2005). 116 Standard An instructional leader demonstrates honesty, integrity, and fairness to guide school policies and practices consistent with current legal and ethical standards for professional educators. Key Indicators 1. Adheres to a professional code of ethics and values 2. Makes decisions based on the legal, moral and ethical implications of policy options and political strategies 3. Develops well-reasoned educational beliefs based upon an understanding of teaching and learning 4. Understands ethical and legal concerns educators face when using technology throughout the teaching and learning environment 5. Develops a personal code of ethics embracing diversity, integrity, and the dignity of all people 6. Acts in accordance with federal and state constitutional provisions, statutory standards, and regulatory applications 7. Demonstrates ability to make decisions within an ethical context Conclusions From this collaborative effort, there are three major lessons that have been learned: ? The all-too-common gap between policy and practice can be bridged through the active engagement of all major stakeholders, including K-12 and higher education practitioners, policymakers, and business leaders, in all stages of a reform 117 initiative ? from the study and dialogue leading to recommendations through full implementation. ? Complex, comprehensive reform requires hard work over along period of time with constant monitoring of progress and use of formative assessment results to maintain momentum. ? Do not make assumptions about what people know and understand. Constant attention to communications with all groups of stakeholders is imperative. Summary Preparation and evaluation of Alabama school leaders were previously based on one generic set of standards, the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders. Numerous Alabama stakeholders using standards from 22 states, ISLLC, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and the work of the SREB have designed new standards. These standards are aligned to the knowledge and abilities identified by stakeholders as essential for improving student achievement as identified by student performance on state-mandated standardized achievement tests. Educational leadership comes from many sources, not just the ?usual suspects? ? superintendents and principals. But the usual suspects are likely still the most influential within school settings. Efforts to improve their recruitment, training, evaluation, and ongoing development are considered highly cost-effective approaches to successful school improvement in Alabama. These efforts may be increasingly productive as research provides us with more robust understandings of how successful leaders make sense of priorities, and how those practices seep into the fabric of the education system, 118 improving its overall quality and substantially adding value to our students? learning (Leithwood et al, 2004). In November 2004, Alabama Governor Bob Riley convened a group of 200 education and business leaders to focus on issues and challenges related to school leadership in Alabama. The charge to the Governor?s Congress on School Leadership was to examine all facets of leadership including preparation, selection, support, professional development, certification, and working conditions. This systemic approach to overhauling the vision and practice for educational leaders acknowledged the critical role of leaders in improving the quality of teaching and increasing student achievement. State Superintendent Joe Morton and the Alabama State Department of Education staff closely collaborated with the Governor?s Office to direct the work of this blue ribbon group. The Congress, which worked through five task forces, issued its final report in May 2005. The glue binding the major recommendations was a new set of leadership standards that are aligned with the standards of ISLLC and those of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and strongly influenced by the research and development of the Southern Regional Education Board. SREB?s work in redefining the preparation, selection, and ongoing professional learning of educational leaders ? supported in part by the Wallace Foundation ? was a major support of the work of the Congress. Alabama?s eight leadership standards are aligned to the knowledge and abilities needed to improve student achievement, set high expectations for leadership preparation and performance. Additionally, The Alabama Educator Code of Ethics serves as a guide to ethical conduct. There previously was no formal Code of Ethics. The State Board of Education adopted the Alabama Standards for Instructional Leadership and the Alabama 119 Educator Code of Ethics in July 2005. All university programs that provide a master?s degree in Administration must redesign their programs to reflect the new standards by 2008 in order to maintain the approval of the State Board of Education. 120 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the findings and conclusions drawn based on the analysis of the documents collected throughout this study. The need to examine standards for school leaders is reviewed followed by a restatement of the study procedures. Suggestions for future research, based on the findings of this study, are listed. Introduction Many educational administration preparation programs in the United States have a similar history (Campbell et al 1987). Today?s programs are more alike than different, regardless of university Carnegie classification, type of student, or variations in curriculum (Haller et al, 1997). The approximately 500 programs in the United States generally have a similar goal: provide quality pre-service leadership preparation (NCSL, 2003). While some disagreement exists relative to details, the elements of quality program preparation are fairly straightforward. Identifying these elements and explaining how they can be improved has not provided sufficient motivation to universally elevate preparation programs to a level of performance that satisfies accrediting bodies, deans, professional associations, and the external public (Achilles, 2005). 121 Methods and Procedures The purposes of this study were to report the historical and political impetus for standards for school leaders and determine the roles and/or influence national educational organizations played as the State of Alabama developed its standards for school leaders. Two data sources were used in this study. The first data source was public and archival documents published by state departments of education from southeastern states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. For each of these states the following information was reviewed (a) standards used as a model; (b) year state adopted standards; (c) intended purposes for adopting standards; (d) unintended consequences of adopting standards; (e) process used to select standards; (f) parties involved in the selection process; and (g) parties not involved in the selection process. The second data source consisted of public domain and archival documents published by national educational organizations such as CCSSO, ELCC, NCATE, and SREB. The researcher used an historical research approach when analyzing public domain and archival documents published by several national educational organizations such as CCSSO, ELCC, NCATE, and SREB. The following information was reviewed for each organization: (a) history of the organization; (b) purpose of the organization; (c) history of involvement in educational administration standards; and (d) espoused standards for school leaders. After completing this research, separate manuscripts were written to address each of three research questions. 122 Summary of Findings Significantly raising the achievement of all students ? promoting learning that is wide-reaching while also deeply rooted in well-developed insight and relevant experience ? is, without doubt, the top priority of formal schooling. Leadership has an important role to play in realizing this objective. We could do a much better job of developing and supporting the people who direct and manage schools, but how to do so is far less apparent. Clarifying what educational leaders need to know and be able to do is a worthy endeavor. Designing strategies to ensure that leadership training and ongoing professional development produce and strengthen these skills also is valuable. But effective leadership is only one piece of a complicated school-improvement puzzle. If leadership development is to produce notable gains in student learning, it is essential to understand where effective leadership fits in the larger process of reform and how it relates to ? and perhaps depends upon ? other major changes in the practice of schooling. This is a proclamation much easier said than done. First, there is no accepted theory of program preparation in educational administration. One does exist, informally, in the debate between providing a curriculum that emphasizes training to be a practitioner or a curriculum affording the educational background of a scholar (Berry & Beach, 2006). The NCPEA and the UCEA are symbolic of this fragmentation. NCPEA historically has had strong representation from practitioner-oriented professors and institutions: an orientation that still exists, but with greater and growing attention to scholarship (Berry & Beach, 2006). One of the reasons for the founding of UCEA in the 1950s was to elevate the scholarly and academic profile 123 of the profession and the practitioner (Berry & Beach, 2006). Neither approach has elevated the academic standing of the profession. While variations in curriculum should be encouraged, a typical setting should be recognized that encompasses all programs and focuses on quality preparation blending practical, professional, and academic knowledge. Conceptually, one can suggest that three general domains ? practical, professional, and academic knowledge - shape educational administration preparation. Practical knowledge is the general knowledge that one brings to educational leadership through a lifetime of learning, experience in another professional setting, general training, or general common sense ability (Hollis & Arnold, 2002). Skills that one should be able to transfer from one setting to another might include, for example, consensus and teambuilding ability, management of personnel, collective negotiation skills, or financial shrewdness. A person may have skill in developing and maintaining relationships, or understand aspects of educational leadership in the area of law, finance, or community issues because of interest or professional training. Whatever common practical knowledge one brings to the job of educational leader can be found in the training of many professions. This is the kind of knowledge that school boards might find attractive in a leader from another professional setting. Some may think that leadership is leadership and that those individuals who can transfer these skills from one setting to another will find success in educational administration (Berry & Beach, 2006). For this reason some school boards look to retired military leaders as superintendents. A belief some hold is that many leadership skills can be transferred to the educational setting (Berry & Beach, 2006). 124 Professional knowledge is the accumulation of information an educational leader acquires, for example, about education law, state and federal policies, school board procedures, state funding formulas, how to conduct teacher evaluations, handling discipline procedures for suspension, or working with state department officials on revising the state testing program and the like (Waters & Grubb, 2004). Knowledge for doing one?s administrative job has become more complex under the weight of mandates, societal expectations, parent demands, and student needs. Knowing the professional role, and having the professional knowledge to perform in that role, is a gateway into administration. Professional knowledge is the value added ability one brings to an educational position. Professional knowledge is the craft knowledge that is acquired during one?s career and is not easily transferable. Murphy (2005) described the post World War II orientation of educational administration toward the behavioral sciences as a ?clamoring for more scientifically based underpinnings for the profession? (p. 157). This clamoring for a more scientific and academic preparation program reinforced and established the academic domain of the Theory of Educational Administration Preparation (Murphy, 2005), which is the belief that theory building and parameters are outlined for all educational administration preparation programs. The academic domain altered the profession of educational administration at the university level as professors not only accepted this domain as a critical component of the curriculum, but saw their own role, as a professor in the academic community, shifting to emphasize research and scholarship as a professional expectation and requirement (Murphy, 2005). Moore (1964) described the professor of educational administration as: a new breed of leader in school administration. Typically, 125 he is on the faculty of a multipurpose university, which prepares school administrators, he is a student of the behavioral sciences, and he is an interpreter of research applied to educational processes and institutions (Moore, 1964, p. 23). These three domains in very broad terms and over the course of the 20 th century, influenced professional preparation through the development of a curriculum that reflected courses taught by professors oriented to one, some, or all of these domains. However, this predominantly umbrella orientation, or as Donmoyer (1999) described it ? the big tent ? did not provide an adequate depth to inform the profession about what educational leaders should know and be able to do. The lack of a recognized knowledge base spanning all three areas troubled both professors and practitioners (Berry & Beach, 2006). A perceived and actual depth of information about critical knowledge in each domain led to what became the 50-year dialogue about the lack of a knowledge base and the weak underpinnings for standards by which to guide programs preparing principals and superintendents (Berry & Beach, 2006). The standards problem has a history going back to 1950 when the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration (CPEA) was formed. During its existence between 1950 and 1960, CPEA struggled for a purpose as UCEA and NCPEA emerged as the primary professional organizations in the field (Berry & Beach, 2006). However, one can trace early conversations about improving administrator training programs to this short lived organization (Moore, 1964). It was at this time that the NCATE approached CPEA with a proposal to study what would become ?criteria for the accreditation of graduate programs of study which prepare school administrators? (Moore, 1964, p. 27). As Moore (1964) described the 126 work of this group he noted that, ?Perhaps the most significant work of the Committee revolved around the establishment (through political/professional sanctions) of standards for the preparation of school administrators? (p. 27). It is noteworthy as well, to recognize the founding of the UCEA as an outgrowth of the CPEA. The Kellogg Foundation, which supported CPEA?s founding as a consortium of eight elite universities, agreed to extend funding to include an original group of 33 universities with the purpose ?to improve the training of school administrators, stimulate and coordinate research, and distribute materials resulting from research and training activities? (Campbell, Fleming, Newell, & Bennion, 1987, p. 14). Although one might consider the development of the ISLLC standards a framework and starting point for educational administration curriculum development it was, in actuality, a logical extension of work, and thought, that had gone on for more than 30 years within the field (Skrla et al, 2001). The overall effect of the ISLLC standards focused on program development and the articulation of what principals should know and be able to do. ISLLC Standards also brought some national uniformity to the standards movement. On the whole, the standards addressed preparation at the pre-service level (Hallinger, 2003). They were minimal expectations/requirements that established a framework for informing university programs preparing educational leaders at the Master?s degree level. One must keep in mind that the ISLLC standards are a snapshot of an era and must continue to be revised to reflect contemporary thinking as school, society, and education evolve and change. They are limited in their scope to reflect and not define the complete knowledge base of educational administration (McDonald, 2005). They address 127 what the profession considers to be entry-level skills, abilities, and knowledge. They do not encompass the entire knowledge base and do not address, in depth, areas that one expects to find in a specialist or doctoral degree (Berry & Beach, 2006). The ISLLC standards moved educational administration preparation to consider contemporary ideas about leadership and learning (Murphy, 2005). As Murphy (2005) stated, ?(T)he object of the ISLLC has been to yoke the Standards to important leverage points for change. The goal has been to generate the critical support necessary to move school administration out of its 100-year orbit and then to reposition the profession around leadership for learning? (p. 180). These standards are applied on preparation programs through state and national accreditation programs. The ISLLC standards focused educational administration preparation at the master?s degree level and gave programs a lens to view the curriculum for pre-service content (Berry & Beach, 2006). Another side of the argument is that they dumbed down the curriculum and reduced the educational administration program to narrow interpretation of the knowledge base (Donmoyer, 1999). More damning according to English (2005) is that the ISLLC standards have no grounding in research to validate what they guide principals to know and do. One might take the view that having these standards was the culmination of a long march by the field to better frame what principals should know and be able to do. Although many might disagree over which standards are more or less important, it is clear that standards helped provide guidance for professors of educational administration as they planned programs and individual lessons (Berry & Beach, 2006). 128 The lack of an agreed upon knowledge base (KB) in educational administration has created consternation for 50 years (Carr & Fulmer, 2004). The development of ISLLC standards and subsequent dissemination through accreditation by NCATE quieted the knowledge base discussion but did not displace the question of need or the importance of accessing the knowledge within the field (Creighton & Young, 2005). As Creighton and Young (2005) stated, ?The problem is not so much an absence of a KB, but more that it is incomplete and unorganized, existing in a hodgepodge of textbooks and educational journals, and of limited access. What is needed now is the assembly of the KB in one central location, authored by and representative of all professors and practitioners, and freely accessible in several languages to all in the world? (p. 136). Recommendations for Policymakers Consideration needs to be given to looking for evidence, both positive and negative, both intended and unintended, about ways in which standards are influencing the profession of school administration in both the academic arm of the profession and in the practice of leadership in schools and districts. It is only when these types of data are collected that we will know whether or not standards for school leaders are influencing school administration in the direction of educationally grounded, community-based, non- hierarchically anchored conceptions of leadership. Based on this study, the following is a list of recommendations for policymakers to consider: 1. Standards. Review and approve principal licensure and relicensure programs to verify that they adequately address the knowledge and skills needed by principals 129 to engage in research-based practices. If the state has already adopted standards for preparation and licensure, review them for the specific responsibilities and practices correlated with student achievement. If the state has not yet adopted standards, consider doing so and look for evidence that they include research- based practices that are correlated with higher levels of student achievement. 2. Higher Education. Ensure that administrator licensure and relicensure programs are taught by faculty with the knowledge and skills needed to teach research- based leadership practices. Approving programs based on standards that embed research-based practices is a critical first step in improving the quality and consistency of administrator preparation and licensure. The second most important step is to ensure that higher education faculty members or others teaching in these programs have a deep understanding of the standards and research-based practices necessary to prepare school leaders for initial licensure and seasoned administrators for relicensure. 3. Professional Development. Commit the resources necessary for high-quality, rigorous, and research-based professional development programs for principals. Establish a state requirement of ongoing professional development of administrators for relicensure, and then provide the incentives and funding needed to implement it. 4. Collaboration. Collaborate with the chief state school officers and other senior leadership to influence the conditions necessary to support change. The actions that principals take can influence student achievement. Their leadership will be amplified or moderated by the conditions within which they are working. Policies 130 that focus on the preparation of principals on standards suffused with research- based practices provide the support principals need to use these practices effectively and increase the likelihood that administrator preparation programs will be translated into improved school and student performance. Limitations of the Study This historical research has illustrated how standards for school leaders are taking root in a number of the 50 states, including the State of Alabama. One limitation is the researcher is a practicing high school principal who served on the standards task force of the Governor?s Congress on School Leadership. This study is limited to the southeastern states. The results are preliminary and subject to important limitations. As researchers continue their efforts to gather data on the diffusion of standards, deeper analyses will address the limitations of this study. Recommendations for Further Study 1. A job effectiveness comparison study involving Alabama school administrators who were appointed to a principalship prior to the implementation of Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders and those who were appointed having attended a preparation program based on the Alabama standards. 2. A detailed analysis comparing student achievement levels of schools with principals who completed preparation programs that have been redesigned to include ISSLC Standards for School Leaders and Alabama Standards for 131 Instructional Leaders with schools whose principals have not completed a redesigned preparation program. Concluding Remarks School leadership is a cornerstone to reforming public education. Finding effective strategies to ensure that school leaders are prepared to lead is central to achieving responsive accountability and instructional improvement in public education. Yet there are school leaders who lack the necessary knowledge and skills to manage standards-based accountability school reform, and are in need of effective professional development. There appears to be a shortage of qualified candidates to fill anticipated vacancies due to the expected retirement of current school leaders. To meet this need, state education agencies, school districts, university and district partnerships, and private organizations have developed new professional preparation programs. These programs share a number of programmatic features such as instructional strategies, selection process, purpose, evaluation design, and adherence to the ISLLC standards. Given the expected growth in the PK-12 population and the intensified demands for positive student outcomes, the investment in professional preparation programs for school leaders is likely to increase. For such investment to continue, positive outcomes in student achievement will need to be demonstrated. Yet most of these programs have not been formally evaluated. This is an important next step for the professional development of school leaders, requiring the appropriate resources to observe, contact participants, and develop instruments to measure the effectiveness of these programs. 132 Although the challenges are substantial, the lessons of this research are hopeful. First, it is possible to create systematic learning opportunities for school leaders that help them develop the complex skills needed to lead and transform contemporary schools. Second, programs that succeed in developing such leaders have a number of elements in common, including the nature of their curricula, the teaching and learning strategies they employ, the ways they organize communities of practice, and the kinds of clinical experiences they construct. Third, my review of distinctive models operating in diverse contexts illustrates that there are numerous ways to build such programs and to develop the partnerships and funding supports that enable them to survive and succeed. Finally, Alabama?s state and local leaders have begun to develop policy strategies that hold promise for eventually making such programs commonplace rather than exceptional. The collaborative effort needed is made worthwhile by the importance of developing a generation of strong, skilled leaders who can create schools that provide expert teaching for all students in settings where they can succeed. 133 REFERENCES Abrams, J. (1985). New Perspectives 17(2), 15 ? 18. Achilles, C., & Price, C. (2001). What is missing in the current debate about EDAD standards. AASA Administrator, 24(2), 8 ? 14. Achilles, C. (2005). Drama in educational administration: A farce or a morality plan? In T. Creighton, S. Harris, & J. Coleman (Eds), Crediting the Past, Challenging the Present, Creating the Future (pp 56 ? 82). Huntsville, TX: NCPEA. Alabama State Department of Education. (2005). Governor?s congress on school leadership final report. Montgomery, AL: Alabama State Department of Education. Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233 ? 256. Baker, E. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, LA Barnett, David. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow?s leaders? Education. 125(1), 121 ? 129. Bedard, G., & Aitken, A. (2004). Designing a standards-based master?s program in educational leadership: Trends, contexts, and adaptations. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 8(9), 1 ? 51. 134 Berry, J. & Beach, R. (2006). K-12 leadership and the educational administration curriculum: A theory of preparation. Huntsville, TX: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Beyer, B. (2006). Combining Forces in the Development of Programs and Services: Bringing Education, Government, and Nonprofit Agencies Together. Miami, AZ: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Beyer, B., & Ruhl-Smith, C. (2000). Research and collaboration as keys to improved performance. Journal of the Intermountain Center for Educational Effectiveness, 1(2), 35 ? 40. Black, S. (2000). Finding time to lead. American School Board Journal, 187(1), 46 ? 48. Blackman, M. C., & Fenwick, L. T. (2000). Looking for leaders in a time of change. Education Week. 19(29), 68 ? 69. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2004). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership, 3 rd Edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brace, P., & Jewett, A. (1995). The state of state politics research. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 643 ? 681. Bracey, G. (2003). April foolishness: The 20 th anniversary of A Nation at Risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 616 ? 621. Bradshaw, L., Perreault, G., McDonald, J., & Bell, E. (1997). Evaluating the results of innovative practices in educational leadership programs. Paper presented at Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration in Charleston, SC. Bredeson, P. (1995). Building a professional knowledge base in educational administration: Opportunities and obstacles. In R. Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. 135 Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base in educational administration: Mulitple perspectives (p. 52). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brighouse, T., & Woods, D. (1999). How to Improve Your School. London: Rutledge. Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Kerbow, D., Rollows, S., & Easton, J. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Button, H. (1966). Doctrines of Administration: A brief history. Educational Administration Quarterly, 2(3), 216 ? 224. California Department of Education. (2006). Developing highly qualified teachers and administrators. A white paper on developing highly qualified teachers and administrators for California schools. California Department of Education. Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Callahan, R. & Button, H. (1964). Historical change of the role of the man in the organization: 1865 ? 1950. In D. E. Griffiths (Ed.), Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, Sixty-third NSSE Yearbook Part II (pp. 73 ? 92). Campbell, R., Fleming, T., Newell, L., & Bennion, J. (1987). A history of thought and practice in educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press. Carr, C. & Fulmer, C. (2004). Educational Leadership: Knowing the Way, Showing the Way, Going the Way. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. Chenoweth, T, Carr, C., & Ruhl, T. (2002). Best Practices in Educational Leadership Preparation Program. State Action for Educational Leadership Project. 136 Clarke, R. (2005). If You Don?t Feed School Leaders They Will Eat Their Staff! A sabbatical paper. Vardon School Hamilton. Cooper, B., & Boyd, W. (1985, Spring). Principals, superintendents, and the administrator?s art. The Public Interest, 42 ? 62. Cooper, B., & Boyd, W. (1987). The evolution of training for school administrators, In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to Administrative Training (pp. 3 ? 27). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1987). Interstate new teacher assessment and support consortium state teacher policy framework. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC) standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). Creating a professional pathway for the Texas principalship. Retrieved on January 28, 2006 from www.ccsso.org. Creighton, T., & Young, M. (2005). Taking back our profession: Revisited. In T. Creighton, S. Harris, J. Coleman (Eds.), Crediting the Past, Challenging the Present, Creating the Future (pp. 135 ? 146) Huntsville, TX: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Crowson, R., & Hannaway, J. (1989). Introduction and overview: The politics of reforming school administration. In R. Crowson, & J. Hannaway (Eds.), The Politics of Reforming School Administration. New York, NY: Falmer Press. Crowson, R., & McPherson, R. (1987). The legacy of the theory movement: Learning from the new tradition. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to 137 Administrative Training in Education (pp. 45 ? 64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Cunningham, W., & Cordeiro, P. (2000). Educational administration: 8 problem-based approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Culbertson, J. (1963). Common and specialized content in the preparation of administrators. In D. J. Leu & H. C. Rudman, (Eds.), Preparation Programs for Administrators: Common and Specialized Learnings (pp. 34 ? 60). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Culbertson, J. (1965). Trends and issues in the development of a science of administration. In center for the advanced study of educational administration (Ed.), Perspectives on Educational Administration and the Behavioral Sciences, (3 ? 22). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Culbertson, J. (1988). A century?s quest for a knowledge base. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 3 ? 26). New York: Logman. Culbertson, J., & Farquhar, R. (1971). Preparing educational leaders: Content in administration preparation. UCEA Newsletter, 12(3), 8 ? 11. Daresh, J. (2002). US school administrator development: Issues and a plan for improvement. In Wen-Liuh (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on School Leader Preparation, Licensure, Certification, Selection, Evaluation, and Professional Development. Tiapei, Taiwan: National Taipei Teachers College. 138 Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 59 ? 80. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Day, C., Harris, A., Hatfield, M., Toley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading school in times of change. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Donaldson, G. (2001). To lead a school: A collaborative leadership model for teachers and principals. New York: Teachers College Press. Donmoyer, R., Imber, J., & Scheurich, J. (Eds.). (1995). The knowledge base in educational administration: multiple perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press. Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base. In J. Murphy and K. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 25 ? 43). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Doud, J., & Keller, E. (1998). The K-8 Principal. Alexandria, VA: NAESP. Education Commission of the States. (1998). Designing and implementing standards- based accountability systems. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for opening in the principalship? An exploratory study. Washington, DC: NAESP & NASSP. 139 Educational Research Service. (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Washington, DC: NAESP & NASSP. Education Writers Association. (2002). Searching for a superhero: Can principals do it all? Washington, DC: EWA. Educational Leadership Constituent Council. (1995). NCATE guide to folio preparation for advanced programs in educational leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Educational Testing Service. (2000). School leaders licensure assessment study kit, Book I. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. e-Lead. (2006). Connecting school, families and communities. Retrieved May 2, 2007 from http://www.e-lead.org/principles/connection.asp. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: The Albert Shanker Institute. English, F. (2000). Psst! 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: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 159 ? 168. English, F. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of educational administration. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. English, F. (2005). Educational leadership for sale: Social justice, the ISLLC standards, and the corporate assault on public schools. In T. Creighton, S. Harris, & J. Coleman (Eds.), Crediting and the Past, Challenging the Present, Creating the 140 Future (pp. 83 ? 106) Huntsville, TX: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. English, F., & Eaves, R. (2004). Learning ?manifestospeak?: A metadiscursive analysis of the Fordham Foundation?s manifesto for better leaders for America?s schools. In T. J. Lasley (Ed.), Better Leaders for America?s Schools: Perspectives on the Manifesto, (pp. 52 ? 91). Columbia, MO: UCEA. Evans, R. (1991). Ministrative insight: Educational administration as pedagogic practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what?s needed to fix public schools. New York: Public Agenda. Farquhar, R. (1977). Preparatory programmes in educational administration. In L. Cunningham, W. Hack, & R. Nystrand (Eds.), Educational Administration: The developing decades (pp. 329 ? 357). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Fink, D. & Brayman, C. (2004). Principals? succession and educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 431 ? 449. Firestone, W., & Shipps, D. (2003). How do educational leaders interpret the multiple accountabilities that they face? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Fitzpatrick, J., & Hero, R. (1988). Political culture and political characteristics of the American states: A consideration of some old and new questions. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 145 ? 153. 141 Fordham Foundation. (2003). Better Leaders for America?s Schools: A Manifesto. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Frampton, P., & Hirth, M. (2003). Teaching leaders how to lead better. Principal Leadership. 3(8), 61 ? 65. Fullan, M. (1992a). Issue: Is it the concept of transformational leadership at odds with the established view of instructional leadership? Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Fullan, M. (1992b). Issue: Is it the concept of transformational leadership at odds with the established view of instructional leadership? Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gantner, M., Newsom, J., & Dunlap, K. (2000). Reconceptualizing the role of the principal: Giving voice to the silence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, LA. April, 2000. Garner, C. (2003). Educational Finance for School Leaders: Strategic Planning and Administration. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Getzels, J. (1977). Educational administration twenty years later, 1954 ? 1974. In L. L. Cunningham, W. G. Hack, & R. O. Nystrad (Eds.). Educational administration: The developing decades. (3 ? 24). Berkley, CA: McCutchan. Glassman, N., Cibueka, J., & Ashby, D. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3(2), 257 ? 288. Goldhammer, K. (1983). Evolution in the profession. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(3), 249 ? 272. 142 Greenfield, T. (1975). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In M. G. Hughes (Ed.), Administering Education: International Challenge, (pp. 71 ? 99). London: Athlone. Greenfield, T. (1988). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. In D. E. Griffith, R. T. Stout, & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Leaders for America?s Schools: The Report and Papers of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration, (pp. 131 ? 159). Berkley, CA: McCuthan. Gregg, R. (1960). Administration. In C. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 3 rd Edn. (pp. 19 ? 24). New York: MacMillan. Gregg, R. (1969). Preparation of administrators. In R. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 4 th Edn. (pp. 993 ? 1004). London: MacMillan. Griffiths, D. (1959). Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. Griffiths, D. (1988a). Administrative theory. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administrative, (pp. 27 ? 51). New York: Longman. Griffiths, D. (1988b). Educational administration: Reform PDQ or RIP, Occupational Paper 8312, Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233 ? 256. Guba, E. (1960). Research in internal administration ? What do we know? In R. Campbell, & J. Lipham (Eds.), Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action (pp. 113 ? 141), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Haberman, M. (2004). Alternative certification: Intended and unintended consequences. Address to the 1 st National Center on Alternative Certification Conference. 143 Hale, E. J., & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: a national perspective on policy & program innovations. Washington, DC & Edwardsville, IL: Institute for Educational Leadership & Illinois Education Research Council. Haller, E., Brent, B., & McNamara, J. (1997). Does graduate training in educational administration improve America?s schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(3), 222 ? 227. Hallinger, P. (2003). Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership: A Global Perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publications. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal?s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980 ? 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157 ? 191. Hannaway, J. (2003). Accountability, assessment, and performance issues: We?ve come a long way?or have we? In W. L. Boyd, & D. Miretzkey (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Change and challenges (pp. 20 ? 36). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press. Harlow, J. (1962). Purpose-defining: The central function of the school administrator. In J. A. Culbertson & S. P. Hencley (Eds.), Preparing Administrators: New Perspectives, (pp. 61 ? 71). Columbus, OH: UCEA. Heck, R., Larsen, K., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94 ? 125. Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1984). The management of organizational behavior, 4 th Edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 144 Hess, F. (2001). Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Hess, F. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America?s schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2003). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation reform. Education Policy, 19, 155 ? 180. Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2002). A framework for school leaders:Linking the ISLLC standard to practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hill, P. (2002). What principals need to know about teaching and learning. In M. Tucker, & J. Codding (Eds.), The Principal Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hilliard, A. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293 ? 304. Hoachlander, G., Alt, M., & Beltranena, R. (2001). Leading school improvement: What research says. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Hodgkinson, C. (1975). Philosophy, politics, and planning: An extended rationale for synthesis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 11(1), 11 ? 20. Hollis, T. & Arnold, M. (2002). Raising the Standard Toward Excellence in Educational Administration Programs. Retrieved May 28, 2007 from http://www.leaderu.com/education/raisingstandards.html Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, 5 th Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 145 Indiana University. (2002). Indiana university school of education accreditation report. Indiana University. Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996). Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Irwin, C. (1989). What Research Tells the Principal About Educational Leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. New Orleans, LA. Jackson, B. J., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192 ? 212. Kaplan, L. Owings, W., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin. 89(643), 28 ? 44. Kelly, C., Kimball, S., & Conley, S. (2000). Payment for results: Effects of the Kentucky and Maryland group-based performance award systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 159 ? 199. 146 Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. (2000). The work of principals and their preparation: Addressing critical needs for the 21 st century. Paper supported by funding from the Carnegie Foundation and the National Center on Education and the Economy. Kennedy, C. (Ed.). (2000). Summary responses to NAESP/NASSP/NMSA survey questions. Principals? Leadership Summit, July 24 ? 26, 2000. Washington, DC. Sponsored by the USDOE & Rainwater Foundation. Kimbrough, R., & Nunnery, M. (1988). Educational administration: An introduction, 3 rd Edn. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company. Kowalski, T. (2004). The ongoing war for the soul of school administration. Better Leaders for America?s Schools: Perspectives on the Manifesto. Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration, 92 ? 114. Lashway, L (1998). Standards for administrators. Clearinghouse on educational policy management. Lashway, L. (2003). Transforming principal preparation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Lauder, A. (2000). The new look in principal preparation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 23 ? 28. Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership. 49(5), 8 ? 12. Leithwood, K. (2000). Understanding schools as intelligent systems. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Onterio, Canada: The Wallace Foundation. 147 Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (2003). Toward a second generation of school leadership standards. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Royal Swets and Zeitlinger. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1993). Defining effective leadership for Connecticut?s future schools. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education. 6(4), 301 ? 333. Levin, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project. Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2001). Will standards-based reforms improve the education of students of color? National Tax Journal, 54(2), 401 ? 415. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4 ? 16. Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2000). Educational administration: Concepts and practices, 3 rd Edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning. MacBeth, J. (2003). Effective School Leadership to Change. Washington, DC: NCSL. Mandel, D. (2000). Recognizing and encouraging exemplary leadership in America?s schools: a prospectus to establish a system of advanced certification for administrators. Denver, CO: American Association of School Administrators. McCarthy, M. (1998). The evolution of educational leadership programs. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCarthy, M. (1999a). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration 2 nd Edn. (pp. 119 ? 139). 148 McCarthy, M. (1999b). The ?changing? face of the educational leadership professorate. In J. Murphy, & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational Administration: A decade of reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McCarthy, M. (2004). Point/counterpoint: The continuing debate about standards and assessments for school leaders. University Council for Educational Administration Review, 46(2), 1. McDonald, J. (2005). Change and the Knowledge Base of Educational Administration. Retrieved May 28, 2007 from http://cnx.org/content/m13234/latest. McFarland, L., Senn, L., & Childress, J. (1994). 21 st century leadership: Dialogues with 100 top leaders. New York, NY: The Leadership Press. McGuire, M. (2002). Elevating educational leadership task force report (Report issued to the Michigan Board of Education). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. McLaughlin, M., & Talbent, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge/Falmer. Meier, D. (2002). Standardization versus standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 190 ? 198. Mescall, B. (2007). Shifting sands of leadership in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 39(1), 49 ? 62. Miklos, E. (1983). Evolution in administrator preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly. 19(3), 153 ? 177. 149 Miller, K. (2003). School, Teacher, and Leadership Impacts on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Miller, S. (2002). Conversations from the commission: Reflective teaching in the panic of high-stakes testing. English Education, 34(2), 164 ? 168. Milstein, M., & Associates. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: The Danforth experience. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Moore, H. (1964). The ferment in school administration. In E. E. Griffiths (Ed.), Behavioral Science and Educational Administration (pp. 11 ? 32). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The Reform of American Public education in the 1980s: Perspective and Cases, (pp. 3 ? 55). Berkley, CA: McCutchan. Murphy, J. (1991). The effects of the educational reform movement on departments of educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 49 ? 65. Murphy, J. (1992). The Landscape of Leadership Preparation. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Murphy, J. (1998). Preparation for the school principalship: The United States? story. School Leadership & Management. 18(3), 359 ? 372. Murphy, J. (2000). A response to Fenwick W. English?s ?Psst! What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required to be accepted on faith and enforced by authority? 150 [Answer: A religion, aka the ISLLC standards]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 411 ? 414. Murphy, J. (2001a). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58(10). Murphy, J. (2001b). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards for school leaders. AASA Professor. 24(2), 2 ? 6. Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: new blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176 ? 191. Murphy, J. (2005a). Using the ISLLC standards for school administrators at the state level to strengthen school administration. National Association of State Boards of Education. Murphy, J. (2005b). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 151 ? 191. Murphy, J., & Forsyth, P. (1999). A decade of change: An overview. In J. Murphy, & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational Administration: A decade of reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1993). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. Newbury, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (2002). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) story: A brief narrative. In K. Hessell, & J. Holloway (Eds.), A framework for school leaders: Linking the ISLLC standards to practice (pp. 4 ? 9). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 151 Murphy, J. & Vriesenga, M. (2004). Research in preparation programs in educational administration: An analysis. Monograph prepared for the University Council for Educational Administration. Murphy, J., Yff, J., & Shipman, N. (2000) Implementation of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(1), 17 ? 39. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1997). Elementary and middle schools: Proficiencies for principals, 3 rd Edn., Alexandria, VA: Author. National College for School Leadership. (2003). Mentoring and Coaching for New Leaders. Washington, DC: NCSL. National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A national at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for America?s schools. Tempe, AZ: The University Council for Educational Administration. National Commission for the Principalship. (1990). Principals for our changing schools: Preparation and certification. Fairfax, VA: National Commission for the Principalship. National Commission for the Principalship. (1993). Principals for our changing schools: The knowledge and skill base. Fairfax, VA: National Commission for the Principalship. 152 National Conference of State Legislatures. (2006). School leadership: Preparation and program accreditation. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). School Leadership. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). Program standards for elementary teacher preparation and professional standards for unit accreditation. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Instructions to implement standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Arlington, VA: NPBEA. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (1990). Alternative certification for school leaders. Fairfax, VA: NPBEA. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (1989). Improving the preparation of school administrators: An agenda for reform. Charlottesville, VA: NPBEA. Newman, F., King, B., & Young, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting. Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of School, University of Wisconsin. 153 Newton, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Newton, J. (1934). Educational administration as social policy. New York: Charles Scribner?s Sons. Nicolaides, N., & Gaynor, A. (1992). The knowledge base informing the teaching of administrative and organizational theory in UCEA universities: A descriptive and interpretive survey. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 237 ? 265. Norton, J. (2002). Redesigning leadership preparation for school achievement ? preparing school leaders: It?s time to face the facts. Retrieved January 28, 2006 from SREB website www.sreb.org. Norton, M, & Levan, F. (1987). Doctoral studies in educational administration programs in UCEA member institutions. Educational Considerations, 13(1), 21 ? 24. Olson, L. (2002). Policy focus converges on leadership. Education Week, 19(17), 16. O?Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293 ? 329. O?Neil, K. & Fry, B. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Peel, H. A., Wallace, C., Buckner, K. G., Wrenn, S. L., & Evans, R. (1998). Improving leadership preparation through a school, university, and professional organization partnership. NASSP Bulletin. 82(602), 26 - 34. Pierce, M. & Stapleton, D. (Eds). (2003). The 21 st Century Principal: Current Issues in Leadership and Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 154 Porter. A. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343 ? 356. Porter, A. (1993). School delivery standards. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 24 ? 30. Portin, B. S., & Shen, J. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 1 ? 8. Portin, B., Schneider, P, DeArmond, M., & Grundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the principalship. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Reyes, P., & Rorrer, A. (2001). U.S. school reform policy, state accountability systems, and the limited English proficient students. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 163 ? 178. Romberg, T. (1993). NCTM?s standards: A rallying flag for mathematics teachers. Educational leadership, 50(5), 36 ? 41. Rotherham, A., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: The history and politics of state teacher licensure. In F. M. Hess, A. Rotherman, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Appraising Old Answers and New Ideas, (pp. 11 ? 47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Rubin, S., & Spady, W. (1984). Achieving excellence through outcome-based instructional delivery. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 37 ? 44. Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. Review of Research in Education, 17, 269 ? 334. 155 Sanders, N., & Simpson, J. (2005). State policy framework to develop highly qualified educational administrators. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers. Schrag, F. (1995). Teacher accountability: A philosophical view. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 642 ? 644. Senge, Peter. (1990). The 5 th Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective, 3 rd Edn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F., & Thurston, P. (1999). Educational governance and administration, 4 th Edn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. (2006). Rethinking Leadership: A Collection of Articles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Seyfarth, J. (1999). The principal: New leadership for new challenge. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Silver, P. (1982). Administrator preparation. In H. Mitzell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 5 th Edn. (pp. 49 ? 59). New York: Free Press. Skrla, L., Erlandson, O., Reed, E., & Wilson, A. (2001). The Emerging Principalship. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. Skrla, L., & Schurich, J. (Eds.) (2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, polices, and politics. New York and London: Routledge Falmer. Southern Region Education Board. (2001a). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It?s time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. 156 Southern Regional Education Board. (2001b). Leading school improvement: What research says? Atlanta, GA: SREB. Southern Regional Education Board. (2005). Schools can?t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: SREB. Southern Regional Education Board. (2004). Leadership matters: Building leadership capacity. Atlanta, GA: SREB. Southern Regional Education Board. (2004). Progress being made in getting a quality leader in every school. Atlanta, GA: SREB. Stake, R. (1999). The goods on American education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 668 ? 670, 672. Starratt, R. (1996). Transforming educational administration: Meaning, community, and excellence. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Stecher, B., & Hamilton, L. (2002). Putting theory to the test. Rand Review, 26(1), 16 ? 23. Sykes, G., & Elmore, R. (1989). Making school manageable: Policy and administration for tomorrow?s schools. In r. Crowson, & J. Hannaway (Eds.), The politics of reforming school administration (p. 78). New York, NY: Falmer Press. The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management. (1999). Policy brief: Effective leaders for today?s schools: Synthesis of a policy forum on educational leadership. Washington, DC: US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 157 Thomson, S. (1998). Causing change: The National Policy Board for Educational Administration. In J. Murphy, & P. Forsyth (Eds.), Educational administration: A decade of reform. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Tucker, M. (2003). Out with old. Education Next. 3(4), 20 ? 24. Tyack, D. & James, T. (1986). State government and American public education: Exploring the ?primeval forest.? History of Education Quarterly, 26(1), 39 ? 69. US Department of Education. (1997). The national center for educational statistics public and private school principals in the US: A statistical profile, 1987 ? 88 to 1993 ? 94. Washington, DC: NCES. US Department of Education. (2006). Innovations in education: Innovative pathways to school leadership. Retrieved May 28, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prep/alternative/index.html. US Government. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001: Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 (PL 107 ? 110). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. University Council for Education Administration. (1992). UCEA agenda for the 1992 plenum. Austin, TX: University Council for Education Administration. Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candidates? Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin. 85(625), 82 ? 92. Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 18 ? 25. 158 Wikipedia Foundation. (2007). School leadership. Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/school_leadership. Willower, D. (1983). Evolution in the professorship: Past philosophy, future. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 19(3), 179 ? 200. Wilmore, E. L. (2002). Principal leadership: Applying the new education leadership constituent council (ELCC) standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Winkler, A. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 219 ? 225. Wynn, R. (1957). Organization and administration of the professional program. In R. Campbell, & R. Gregg (Eds.), Administrative behavior in Education (pp. 464 ? 509). New York: Harper. Young, M., & Kochan, F. (2004). UCEA leaders respond: Supporting leadership for America?s schools. Better Leaders for America?s Schools: Perspectives on the Manifesto. Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration, 115 ? 129. Young, M., & Peterson, G. (2002). The national commission for the advancement of educational leadership preparation: An introduction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 130 ? 136. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5 th Edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 159 APPENDICES 160 APPENDIX A ALABAMA STANDARDS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS 161 Alabama Standards for Instructional Leaders To realize the mission of enhancing school leadership among principals and administrators in Alabama, resulting in improved academic achievement for all students, instructional leaders will be held to the following standards: 1. Planning for Continuous Improvement Engages the school community in developing and maintaining a shared vision; plans effectively; uses critical thinking and problem-solving techniques; collects, analyzes, and interprets data; allocates resources; and evaluates results for the purpose of continuous school improvement. 2. Teaching and Learning Promotes and monitors the success of all students in the learning environment by collaboratively aligning the curriculum, by aligning the instruction and the assessment processes to ensure effective student achievement; and by using a variety of benchmarks, learning expectations and feedback measures to ensure accountability. 3. Human Resources Development Recruits, selects, organizes, evaluates, and mentors faculty and staff to accomplish school and system goals. Works collaboratively with the school faculty and staff to plan and implement effective professional development, that is based upon student needs and that promotes both individual and organizational growth and leads to improved teaching and learning. 162 Initiates and nurtures interpersonal relationships to facilitate teamwork and enhance student achievement. 4. Diversity Responds to and influences the larger personal, political, social, economic, legal and cultural context in the classroom, school, and the local community while addressing diverse student needs to ensure the success of all students. 5. Community and Stakeholder Relationships Identifies the unique characteristics of the community to create and sustain mutually supportive family-school-community relations 6. Technology Plans, implements, and evaluates the effective integration of current technologies and electronic tools in teaching, management, research, and communication. 7. Management of the Learning Organization Manages the organization, facilities, and financial resources; implements operational plans, and promotes collaboration to create a safe and effective learning environment. 8. Ethics Demonstrates honesty, integrity, and fairness to guide school policies and practices consistent with current legal and ethical standards for professional educators. 163 APPENDIX B FLORIDA PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP STANDARDS 164 Florida Principal Leadership Standards 1. Vision ? High Performing leaders have a personal vision for their school and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop, articulate, and implement a shared vision that is supported by the larger organization and the school community. 2. Instructional Leadership ? High Performing Leaders promote a positive learning culture, provide an effective instructional program, and apply best practices to student learning, especially in the area of reading and other foundational skills. 3. Managing the Learning Environment ? High Performing Leaders manage the organization, operations, facilities, and resources in ways that maximize the use of resources in an instructional organization and promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning environment. 4. Community and Stakeholder Partnerships ? High Performing Leaders collaborate with families, businesses, and community members, respond to diverse community interests and needs, work effectively within the larger organization and mobilize community resources. 5. Decision Making Strategies ? High Performing Leaders plan effectively, use critical thinking and problem solving techniques, and collect and analyze data for continuous school improvement. 6. Diversity ? High Performing Leaders understand, respond to, and influence the personal, political, social, economic, legal, and cultural relationships in the classroom, the school and the local community. 165 7. Technology ? High Performing Leaders plan and implement the integration of technological and electronic tools in teaching, learning, management, research, and communication responsibilities. 8. Learning, Accountability, and Assessment ? High Performing Leaders monitor the success of all students in the learning environment, align the curriculum, instruction, and assessment processes to promote effective student performance, and use a variety of benchmarks, learning expectations, and feedback measures to ensure accountability for all participants engaged in the educational process. 9. Human Resource Development ? High Performing Leaders recruit, select, nurture, and, where appropriate, retain effective personnel, develop mentor and partnership programs, and design and implement comprehensive professional growth plans for all staff ? paid and volunteer. 10. Ethical Leadership ? High Performing Leaders act with integrity, fairness, and honesty in an ethical manner. 166 APPENDIX C GEORGIA?S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LEADER CANDIDATES 167 Georgia?s Performance Standards for Leader Candidates 1. Leader candidates set high expectations for all students in the school or system and organize curriculum, instruction, and assessment around the high expectations. 2. Leader candidates use data on student learning and achievement to set benchmarks and to monitor student progress toward continuous improvement. 3. Leader candidates use technology to meet the individual learning needs of students, teachers, and administrators. 4. Leader candidates lead schools using standards-based objectives, results-based performance management, and continuous improvement. 5. Leader candidates raise perceptions of all parties that the school or system can do better. 6. Leader candidates develop a school or system plan for improvement. 7. Leader candidates help teachers customize instruction for individual students or groups of students that reflect students? own experiences, learning styles, interests, cultures, and special needs. 8. Leader candidates provide students with the resources they need to achieve high learning standards through a comprehensive program of student support services. 9. Leader candidates increase student learning-time as needed, using flexible schedules, structures, and technology. 10. Leader candidates establish a safe and orderly environment that supports reaching the goals of the improvement plan. 168 11. Leader candidates lead the school or system in accordance with school law and professional ethics. 12. Leader candidates use state-of-the-art technology practices from business and industry to effectively and efficiently manage resources, planning, record keeping, and evaluation of schools or systems. 169 APPENDIX D KENTUCKY ADMINISTRATOR STANDARDS FOR PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION 170 Kentucky Administrator Standards for Preparation and Certification Kentucky Administrator Standards for Preparation and Certification shall prepare a candidate for the position of School Principal as specified in the standards included in ?Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders? and ?Technology Standard for School Administrators.? 1. A school administrator is an instructional 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 all the school community. 2. A school administrator is an instructional 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. 3. A school administrator is an instructional 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. 4. A school administrator is an instructional 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. 5. A school administrator is an instructional leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. 6. A school administrator is an instructional leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. 171 7. Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision. 8. Educational leaders ensure that curricular design, instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate technologies to maximize learning and teaching. 9. Educational leaders apply technology to enhance their professional practice and to increase their own productivity and that of others. 10. Educational leaders ensure the integration of technology to support productive systems of learning and administration. 11. Educational leaders use technology to plan and implement comprehensive systems of effective assessment and evaluation. 12. Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology and model responsible decision-making related to these issues. 172 APPENDIX E MISSISSIPPI STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS 173 Mississippi Standards for School Leaders 1. Maximizes student learning by working with staff to translate knowledge of learning theory and human development and relevant school data into successful curricular programs, instructional practices, and assessment strategies. 2. Applies human relations and interpersonal skills to foster a climate of continuous learning and improvement. 3. Facilitates the development and maintenance of organizational and managerial systems consistent with the vision and mission of the school community. 4. Exhibits team building skills in the development of ownership among all stakeholders in the school community. 5. Models and promotes ethics and integrity in professional and personal activities. 174 APPENDIX F NORTH CAROLINA?S STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL EVALUATION 175 North Carolina?s Standards for Principal and Assistant Principal Evaluation 1. The principal is an educational leader who facilitates the development, implementation, and communication of a shared vision of learning that reflects excellence and equity of all students. 2. The principal is an educational leader who promotes the development of organizational, instructional, and assessment strategies to enhance teaching and learning. 3. The principal is an educational leader who works with others to ensure a working and learning climate that is safe, secure, and respectful of diversity. 4. The principal is an educational leader who fosters a culture of continuous improvement focused upon teaching and learning. 5. The principal is an educational leader who uses excellent management and leadership skills to achieve effective and efficient organizational operations. 176 APPENDIX G SOUTH CAROLINA?S STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 177 South Carolina Standards for School Principals 1. Vision - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by facilitating the development, communication, implementation, and evaluation of a shared vision of learning that reflects excellence and equity. 2. Instructional Leadership - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by leading the development and alignment of the organizational, instructional, and assessment strategies that enhance teaching and learning. 3. Effective Management - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by managing the school organization, its operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. 4. Climate - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a positive school climate. 5. School/Community Relations - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by collaborating effectively with stakeholders. 6. Ethical Behavior - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by demonstrating integrity, fairness, and ethical behavior. 178 7. Interpersonal Skills - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by interacting effectively with stakeholders and addressing their needs and concerns. 8. Staff Development - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by collaborating with school and district staff to plan and implement professional development activities that promote the achievement of school and district goals. 9. Principal?s Professional Development - A school principal is an educational leader who fosters the success of all students by using available resources and opportunities for professional growth. 179 APPENDIX H TENNESSEE?S GOALS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS 180 Tennessee?s Goals for School Leaders School leaders will be well prepared, capable, and responsible for improving performance of schools and school systems. 1. Focus professional growth opportunities for school leaders on instructional leadership consistent with the standards of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Encourage partnerships with business, industry, schools, districts, and higher education to support leadership development. 2. Implement the Board?s School Improvement Planning Policy, ensuring the schools address the Board?s Performance Model and the Board?s policies in early childhood, middle grades, high school, special education, English language learners, and professional development. Ensure that schools integrate various improvement plans and reports into a comprehensive plan. 3. Work with constituency groups to develop a model performance contract for principals, linked to the school or district consolidated improvement plan and ISLLC Standards. Explore the feasibility of developing a new framework for evaluation and professional growth for administrators. 4. Promote collaborative leadership programs between school systems and higher education to identify, prepare, recruit, retain, and support new school administrators. Explore developing policies that support collaborative, experimental routes to administrative licensure. 5. Support school leadership teams in sharing responsibilities for examining data, improving student learning, reaching school accountability goals, and developing 181 a school improvement plan or working on district consolidated improvement plans. 182 APPENDIX I VIRGINIA?S GUIDELINES FOR UNIFORM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND SUPERINTENDENTS 183 Virginia?s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents 1. The administrator effectively employs various processes for gathering, analyzing, and using data for decision-making. 2. The administrator collaboratively develops and implements a school improvement plan that results in increased student learning. 3. The administrator plans, implements, supports, and assesses instructional programs that enhance teaching and student achievement of the Standards of Learning. 4. The administrator develops plans for effective allocation of fiscal and other resources. 5. The administrator communicates a clear vision of excellence and continuous improvement consistent with the goals of the school division. 6. The administrator supervises the alignment, coordination, and delivery of assigned programs and/or curricular areas. 7. The administrator selects, inducts, supports, evaluates, and retains quality instructional and support personnel. 8. The administrator provides staff development programs consistent with program evaluation results and school instructional improvement plans. 9. The administrator identifies, analyzes, and resolves problems using effective problem solving techniques. 10. The administrator maintains effective discipline and fosters a safe and positive environment for students and staff. 184 11. The administrator effectively coordinates the daily operation of the assigned area of responsibility. 12. The administrator effectively manages human, material, and financial resources to ensure student learning and to comply with legal mandates. 13. The administrator demonstrates effective organizational skills to achieve school, community, and division goals. 14. The administrator promotes effective communication and interpersonal relations with students and staff. 15. The administrator promotes effective communication and interpersonal relations with parents and other community members. 16. The administrator works collaboratively with staff, families, and community members to secure resources and to support the success of a diverse student population. 17. The administrator models professional, moral, and ethical standards as well as personal integrity in all interactions. 18. The administrator works in a collegial and collaborative manner with other administrators, school personnel, and the community to promote and support the mission and goals of the school division. 19. The administrator takes responsibility for and participates in a meaningful and continuous process of professional development that results in the enhancement of student learning. 20. The administrator provides service to the profession, the division, and the community. 185 APPENDIX J WEST VIRGINIA?S PRINCIPALS? STANDARDS 186 West Virginia?s Principals? Standards 1. Staff relations, including, but not limited to, the development and use of skills necessary to make a positive use of faculty senates, manage faculty and staff with courtesy and mutual respect, coach and motivate employees, and build consensus as a means of management. 2. School community leadership qualities, including, but not limited to, the ability to organize and leverage community initiative, communicate effectively, work effectively with local school improvement councils, manage change, resolve conflict, and reflect the highest personal values. 3. Educational proficiencies, including, but not limited to, knowledge of curriculum, instructional techniques, student learning styles, student assessment criteria, school personnel performance, evaluation skills and family issues. 4. Administrative skills, including, but not limited to, organizational, fiscal, public policy, and total quality management skills and techniques. 187 APPENDIX K EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONSTITUENT COUNCIL STANDARDS FOR ADVANCED PROGRAMS IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHP FOR PRINCIPALS, SUPERINTENDENTS, CURRICULUM DIRECTORS, AND SUPERVISORS 188 Educational Leadership Constituent Council Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership for Principals, Superintendents, Curriculum Directors, and Supervisors 1. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by the school community. 2. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practices to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff. 3. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. 4. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. 5. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner. 6. Educational leaders have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. 189 APPENDIX L INTERSTATE SCHOOL LEADERS LICENSURE CONSORTIUM STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS 190 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders 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 or learning that is shared and supported by the school community. 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 professional growth. 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. 4. A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, and mobilizing community resources. 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. 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. 191 APPENDIX M NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL?S STANDARDS FOR WHAT PRINCIPALS SHOULD KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO 192 National Association of Elementary School Principals? Standards for What Principal Should Know and Be Able to Do 1. Lead schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center. 2. Set high expectations for the performance of all students and adults. 3. Demand content and instruction that ensure student achievement of agreed upon academic standards. 4. Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and other school goals. 5. Use multiple sources of data as diagnostic tools to assess, identify and apply instructional improvement. 6. Actively engage the community to create shared responsibility for student and school success. 193 APPENDIX N NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCPALS STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPALS 194 National Association of Secondary School Principals? Standards for Principals 1. Decisiveness ? Ability to recognize when a decision is required; ability to act quickly when required. 2. Judgment ? Ability to reach logical conclusions and make high quality decisions based on available information; skill in identifying educational needs and setting priorities; ability to evaluate critically written communications. 3. Leadership ? Ability to get others involved in solving problems; ability to recognize when a group requires direction, to interact with a group effectively, and to guide them in the accomplishment of a task. 4. Oral Communication ? Ability to make clear oral presentation of facts or ideas. 5. Organizational Ability ? Ability to plan, schedule, and control the work of others; skill in using resources in an optimal fashion; ability to deal with a volume of paperwork and heavy demands on one?s time. 6. Problem Analysis ? Ability to seek out relevant data and analyze complex information to determine the important elements of a problem situation; searching for information with a purpose. 7. Sensitivity ? Ability to perceive the needs, concerns, and personal problems of others; skill in resolving conflicts, tact in dealing with people from different backgrounds; ability to deal with people concerning emotional issues; knowing what information to communicate and to whom. 8. Stress Tolerance ? Ability to perform under pressure and during opposition; ability to think on one?s feet. 195 9. Written Communication ? Ability to express ideas clearly in writing; to write appropriately for different audiences?students, teachers, parents, et al. 196 APPENDIX O NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION?S PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION 197 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education?s Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education 1. Strategic Leadership - identify contexts, develop w/ others vision and purpose, utilize information, frame problems, exercise leadership processes to achieve common goals, and act ethically for educational communities 2. Instructional Leadership - Design with others appropriate curricula and instructional programs, to develop learner centered school cultures, to assess outcomes, to provide student personnel services, and to plan with faculty professional development activities aimed at improving instruction 3. Organizational Leadership - Understand and improve the organization, implement operational plans, manage financial resources, and apply decentralized management processes and procedures. 4. Political and Community Leadership - Act in accordance with legal provisions and statutory requirements, to apply regulatory standards, to develop and apply appropriate policies, to be conscious of ethical implications of policy initiatives and political actions, to relate public policy initiatives to student welfare, to understand schools as political systems, to involve citizens and service agencies, and to develop effective staff communications and public relations programs 5. Internship ? process and product that result from the application in a workplace environment of the strategic, instructional, organizational and contextual leadership program standards. 198 APPENDIX P SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION BOARD?S STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS 199 Southern Regional Education Board?s Standards for School Leaders 1. Create a focused mission to improve student achievement and a vision of the elements of school, curriculum and instructional practices that make higher achievement possible. 2. Set high expectations for all students to learn higher-level content. 3. Recognize and encourage implementation of good instructional practices that motivate and increase student achievement. 4. Create a school organization where faculty and staff understand that every student counts and where every student has the support of a caring adult. 5. Use data to initiate and continue improvement in school and classroom practices and student achievement. 6. Keep everyone informed and focused on student achievement. 7. Make parents partners in their student?s education and create a structure for parent and educator collaboration. 8. Understand the change process and have the leadership and facilitation skills to manage it effectively. 9. Understand how adults learn and how to advance meaningful change through quality sustained professional development that benefits students. 10. Use and organize time in innovative ways to meet the goals and objectives of school improvement. 11. Acquire and use resources wisely. 200 12. Obtain support from the central office and from community and parent leaders for their school improvement agenda. Continuously learn and seek out colleagues who keep them abreast of new research and proven practices.