gaining momentum

STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS:

GAINING MOMENTUM

Key organizations interested in school leadership gathered in 1994 to create standards for school leaders. Seven years later, we can see these standards are having an effect on how administrators are trained and developed. E3211WO=Hill2sl!!ulWluII along with nine other national leadership associations who make up the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and 23 state departments of education, joined forces in late 1994 to put their imagined standards for principals into a coherent and meaningful form. The result of this alliance was the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), formed to develop standards and assessments for school leaders. Now more than 30 states are using these standards for a variety of purposes, all having an effect on principals in pre-K-12 schools. These standards were not just random imaginings, but were carefully developed from literature about the changing landscape of society and education and research about effective leaders in schools and other organizations. From the beginning, ISLLC members were convinced that standards for school leaders provided an especially powerful leverage point for reform. They also felt that standards would allow a variety of stakeholders to drive improvement efforts on several fronts: licensure, certification, induction, candidate assessment, evaluation, professional development, and preparation program approval. Using thorough analyses of leadership characteristics linked to school improvement and reviews of the quality work done by the professional leadership associations, ISLLC worked for two years in small and large groups to gather input from stakeholders throughout the country and to develop six standards for school leaders. The Standards ASSP,

for School Leaders, approved by the full Consortium in 1996, defined nearly 200 indicators of knowledge, performance, and dispositions (See sidebar). These standards alone are not particularly powerful. But linking them to other efforts that inform change can have a major effect on reform. The intent of the developers of the standards and indicators was to strengthen school leadership in such arenas as preparation program reform, professional development, and assessments for licensure and relicensure. A 50-state survey completed in late 1998 indicated that more than two-thirds of the states have adopted or adapted the standards. Indications are that additional states are considering adoption or using the ISLLC Standards as raw material in crafting standards unique to their state's particular needs. Considerable efforts are underway in several states and at individual universities to redesign preparation programs using the ISLLC Standards. Assistance was given in this area by the publication of Using ISLLC Standards to Strengthen PreparationPrograms in School Administration in 1997 (Van Meter and Murphy). The common strategy has been for a state to adopt the standards and then require all universities and colleges in the state to redesign their programs on the basis of the standards. The most visible and powerful use of the standards to date has been to develop and implement assessment tools for licensure of beginning principals and relicensure of practicing school leaders. Six states partnered with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) to develop comprehensive, performance-based assessments for licensure. Phase I, the development of the School Leaders Licensure Assessment > FEBRUARY 2001

69

(SLLA), was completed in 1998. The SLLA is .* now being administered nationally three times a As hool administrator is an educaorganization, operations, and year. Nine states are presently requiring begintion leeader who promotes the sucresources for a safe, efficient, and nling principals to pass this test and about a cess iof all students by effective learning envronment dozen others are in the process of studying the s Fac ilitating the development, * Collaborating with families and community members, responding strengths of adoption. Phase II developed a proartcu lation, implementation, and stewa-[rdship of a vision of learning to diverse comnmunity interests totype portfolio to be used primarily for relithat is shared and supported by and needs, and mobilizing comcensure of current administrators. This the scchool community munity resources portfolio is now ready for use and is undergo* Adv 'ocating, nurturing, and sus* Acting with integrity, and fairness, and in an ethical rnanner ing extensive field studies in five states for the taininfg a school culture and * Understanding, responding next two years. Phase III, a School SuperinteninstruLctional program conducive to Stu dent learning and staff proto, and influencing the larger politdents Licensure Assessment, has just been comfessic onal growth ical, social, economic, pleted and was administered for the first time * Ens uring management of the legal and cultural context. in October 2000. With the widespread acceptance of the first set of common, national leadership standards, the consortium and continue to monitor progress toward achieving profesmembers wanted to establish a link with professional developsional development goals. ment for school leaders. ISLLC's response was the Standards * Engaging in continuous reflection and reexamination of Based Professional Development project, a partnership with the professional development plan, leading to a summative the National Policy Board for Educational Administration self-evaluation, a critique of the plan by the team, and revi(NPBEA). Using the leadership standards as the overall sion of the plan to begin the process anew. framework, the 30 states and 11 national education associaThese strategies can directly affect the quality of leadertions that now comprise ISLLC first crafted Propositions for ship in U.S. schools. We have been fortunate that others Quality Professional Development for School Leaders to agree and have helped us to be successful in getting these guide their work. Other outcomes included models of profesinitiatives into play in many states. We hope to continue to sional development that reflect the ISLLC Standards, current make progress on all of these fronts. For the first time, all of thinking about effective professional development, recomthe key players involved in strengthening leadership in mendations that guide policy discussions concerning the schools-the school leader associations (including NASSP), transfer of professional development "credits" among states, state departments of education, professional standards and the complex issue of license reciprocity. boards, and universities have a common set of standards The primary product that resulted from the ISLLC from which to work. We believe that the ISLLC Standards Standards Based Professional Development project was will continue to play an even greater role in reshaping educathe Collaborative Professional Development Process for tional leadership for the 21st century. School Leaders (CPDP). Briefly, the CPDP is a performance-based assessment that addresses the needs of schools References or districts while enhancing the professional growth of 1l Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 1996. school leaders. Interstate school leaders licensure consortium standardsfor school Its major components are: leaders. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO. Available online at * Establishing personal and professional development goals www.ccsso.org/isllc.html. that emphasize teaching and learning and are consistent with LI Shipman, N. and J. Murphy. 1999. ISLLC update. school improvement goals, district goals, and the ISLLC UCEA Review (spring): XL, 13, 18. Standards 0 Van Meter and J. Murphy. 1997. Using ISLLC standards to * Identifying a team of colleagues to serve as the collaborastrengthen preparationprograms in school administration. tive professional development team Washington, D.C.: CCSSO. Available online at * Presenting the professional development plan to the profeswww.ccsso.org/isllc.html. sional development team, receiving feedback, and making revisions Neil Shipman ([email protected]) is an educational leadership * Preparing professional development portfolios that address consultantand director of the ISLLCprojectsfor CCSSO. specific needs or challenges and include reflections * Presenting work products to professional development Joseph Murphy ([email protected]) is a professor at Ohio teams to receive additional feedback that will help school State University, president of the Ohio Leadership Academy, leaders refine ideas, critique and further develop products, and chair of-ISLLC. PL ,-

70

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Standards for school leaders: gaining momentum SOURCE: Principal Leadership (High School Ed.) 1 no6 F 2001 WN: 0103207167015 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.