BookPDF Available

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

December 2013

Publisher: Council of Chief State School Officers

Authors:

Loyola Marymount University

A review of research and policy concerning the standards that guide educational leadership preparation, practice and evaluation.

Content uploaded by Michelle D. Young

Content may be subject to copyright.

Standards for Educational Leaders:

An Analysis

Mary Canole, CCSSO Consultant on School Leadership

Michelle Young, Researcher, Executive Director of UCEA

ISLLC Analysis Report

Growth Model Comparison Study: A Summary of Results

A paper commissioned by the

Technical Issues in Large-Scale Assessment

and Accountability Systems & Reporting

State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards

Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers

Authored By:

Bill Auty, Education Measurement Consulting

Frank Brockmann, Center Point Assessment Solutions

Supported By:

Charlene Tucker, TILSA Advisor

Duncan MacQuarrie, Associate TILSA Advisor

Doug Rindone, Associate TILSA Advisor

Based on Research and Commentary From:

Pete Goldschmidt

Kilchan Choi

J. P. B e au d oi n

Special Thanks:

Arie van der Ploeg, American Institutes for Research

This report was prepared for the Technical Issues in Large Scale Assessment (TILSA) and Accountability Systems

& Reporting (ASR) members of the system of State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)

supported by the Council of Chief StateSchool Ofﬁcers (CCSSO).

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the

positions or policies of CCSSO, its board, nor any of its individual members. No ofﬁcial endorsement by CCSSO,

its board, nor any of its individual members is intended or should be inferred.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Table of Contents

I. Introduction: An Analysis of Leadership Standards ................................................................................................ 3

II. Brief History of the ISLLC Standards .......................................................................................................................5

III. A Change in the Context for School Leaders ........................................................................................................8

IV. The Development of Leadership Standards in Cutting Edge Districts: Deﬁning the New Role of Principals ..... 12

V. Large Urban Districts Putting Leadership Standards to Work in Principal Evaluation Systems ........................... 17

VI. Leadership Research Since 2007 ...........................................................................................................................20

VII. Mapping of the Leadership Standards and a Review of Previous Mapping Work ...............................................39

VIII. Questions for Consideration .................................................................................................................................44

IX. References .............................................................................................................................................................46

X. List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................................49

A. Research Suppor ting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Source: Young and Mawhinney, 2012) ............................. 50

B. InTASC 2011/ Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders/ISLLC

2008 Standards Crosswalk ..................................................................................................................................... 79

C. Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the Educational Leadership

Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 ................................................................................................................................112

D. 2011 InTASC Standards/Teacher Leader Model Standards ...............................................................................119

E. A Crosswalk of Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math, the ISLLC

2008 Standards, and Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education Leaders .................................. 132

F. A Comparison of the NAESP and NASSP Framework for Rethinking Principal Evaluation to

A Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key Evaluation Elements and Considerations ................................. 13 5

G. Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline Distric t Leader Standards ............................137

H. National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals and ISLLC 20 08 ........................................................141

I. A Comparison of New Leaders Urban Excellence Framework and ISLLC 2008 .......................................... 146

J. May 2012 SCEE State Progress Survey – Compilation of Responses to Questions Pertaining

to Leader Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................................... 148

K. Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards .......................................................................................... 15 4

L. Findings from the Council of the Great City Schools Sur vey on Principal Evaluation ................................... 16 0

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

This report was developed by Mary Canole1 and Michelle D. Young2 to inform the work of national

educational leadership stakeholders concerning the review of leadership standards and decisions

concerning the revision of the ISLLC 2008 standards or the development of a new set of leadership

standards and companion documents and tools. The report includes a comparison and analysis of

state and national educator standards and practices, and analyses of the current research on leadership

practice. The report poses questions, options, and recommendations based on comparisons, analyses,

surveys, and research. The authors gratefully acknowledge support from The Wallace Foundation3

for this report, which was produced with assistance from the Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers

(CCSSO), the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), and researchers working in afﬁliation with the

University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA).

1 Mar y Canole is a consultant on school leadership for the Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers (CCSSO).

2 Michelle D. Young is a researcher, the director of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA)

and a professor of educational leadership at the University of Virginia.

3 www.wallacefoundation.org

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section One

Introduction:

An Analysis of Leadership Standards

The Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers’ (CCSSO) State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE)

and The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) received a grant award from The Wallace Foundation

to support principal effectiveness and a strong “principal pipeline.” According to the foundation, the

goal of the principal pipeline is to develop and ensure “the success of a sufﬁcient number of principals

to meet district needs.” The SCEE-CGCS project was designed to address the lack of expertise

concerning principal evaluation that exists among current educators and policymakers at all levels. This

project seeks to survey and document the knowledge and practice of districts and states that have

developed effective principal evaluation systems, and to share these success stories with others. This

grant-funded report is focused on improving principal evaluation, which is a major thrust of principal

pipeline initiatives. It is hoped that this report will serve as a catalyst for the education leadership

community to come together to discuss and identify the necessary steps for ensuring that each and

every school has an effective leader.

The Wallace Foundation is currently working with six large urban districts on principal pipeline

development in order to test its theory about what it takes to build a sustainable principal pipeline.4

According to The Wallace Foundation, “This [principal pipeline] initiative utilizes the results of 10 years

of site work and research in education leadership to inform the construction of a sustainable principal

pipeline. The goal is to demonstrate that when an urban district and its principal training programs

provide large numbers of talented, aspiring principals with the right pre-service training and on-the-job

evaluation and supports, the result will be a pipeline of principals able to improve teaching quality and

student achievement district-wide, especially in schools with the greatest needs.”5 In support of this

goal, the foundation plans to document strategies employed by the six demonstration districts as well

as the lessons learned while building their own district principal pipeline. This information will serve as a

resource to other states and districts engaged in similar work.

CCSSO and CGCS’s work was multi-faceted and entailed the implementation of the following strategies:

•Analyze leader standards – Principals are measured against criteria that, ideally, emerge from

formal leadership standards. The most recent data from CCSSO’s SCEE show that the majority

of states are using a variety of tools, most of which aren’t current with the realities faced by

today’s principals, such as the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

An analysis and comparison of leader standards with other educator and policy standards will

provide insight into the continuities and discontinuities among expectations for leader practice.

4 http://www.wallacefoundation.org/view-latest-news/PressRelease/Pages/The-Wallace-Foundation-Launches-

Major-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx

5 http://www.wallacefoundation.org/view-latest-news/PressRelease/Pages/The-Wallace-Foundation-Launches-

Major-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx//

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

•Synthesize district lessons and needs – CGCS will survey its members to identify promising

practices and gaps in leader evaluation systems. A synthesis of this survey data, combined with

information from CGCS’s district audits, will provide the basis for further discussion among

districts which will take place primarily through webinars and conference calls.

•Vet and synthesize the results of the strategies above – Vetting the results of the above analyses

is an essential validation step in developing reliable, relevant, and useful policy guidance for

states/districts. Such steps will also strengthen recommendations formulated for new tools or

other products.

CGCS surveyed its members about their leader evaluation systems and the role of the principal

supervisor. SCEE completed the mapping of select state and principal pipeline districts’ leadership

standards with such national standards and frameworks as the Educational Leadership Policy Standards:

ISLLC 2008 (CCSSO, 2008), referred to in this document as the “ISLLC standards” or the “ISLLC 2008

standards”; Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b); InTASC

2011; New Teacher Leader Standards; CCSS shifts in English language arts and mathematics; NASSP/

NAESP and New Leaders frameworks; and, the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals

(NBPTS, 2010). In addition, SCEE conducted a study of the six principal pipeline districts’ leadership

standards development process.

The purpose of this report is to review the ISLLC 2008 standards in light of today’s educational

context and educational research and practice. This report includes eight main sections and a series

of appendices. These sections include 1) an introductory analysis of leadership standards; 2) a brief

history of the ISLLC standards and the Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders;

3) key changes in our education context since 2007; 4) the development of leadership standards

in cutting edge districts; 5) large urban districts putting leadership standards to work in principal

evaluation systems; 6) leadership research since 2007, detailing what we know now that we didn’t know

then; 7) a mapping of leadership standards and a review of previous mapping work including studies

of sample state and district leadership standards currently in use and the differences between these

current standards and the ISLLC 2008 standards; and, 8) questions to consider to inform stakeholder

discussions concerning the review of leadership standards as related to whether a new set of leadership

standards should be developed to serve as living documents, responsive to ongoing changes in the

education context.

Note: A preliminary draft of this report and key-mapping artifacts were shared with members of

the National Policy Board for Education Administration (NPBEA) at their meeting in Alexandria,

VA, on November 30, 2012, and with the members of The Wallace Foundation Principal Pipeline

Initiative Professional Learning Community on Leader and Teacher Evaluation during the December

6-7, 2012 Wallace Principal Pipeline Convening in New York. Preliminary report authors Young and

Canole reviewed data from the Principal Pipeline Districts Survey and Focus Group on the leadership

standards development processes and analyzed feedback from the Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative

Professional Learning Community on Leader and Teacher Evaluation and revised the proposed

questions for consideration for leader standards, and companion documents and tools accordingly.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section II

Brief History of the ISLLC Standards

In the mid-1990s, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA), a consortium

of stakeholder groups in educational leadership6, created the Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Consortium (ISLLC) to take up the challenging task of designing the ﬁrst set of national standards

for educational leaders. This new consortium was organized and facilitated by CCSSO. Led by

Joseph Murphy of Vanderbilt University and Neil Shipman of the University of North Carolina-

Chapel Hill, a group of individuals representing numerous professional organizations and 24 states

developed the Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders, which

were adopted by the NPBEA and released in 1996 (CCSSO, 1996). Eight states adopted the ISLLC

standards outright, 23 others added to or modiﬁed the standards for leadership frameworks, and

10 states separately developed leadership standards found to align with the standards. Within a

decade, the ISLLC standards had become almost universally accepted across the United States,

and by 2005, 46 states had adopted or slightly adapted the standards, or had relied upon them

to develop their own set of state standards (Murphy, Young, Crow, & Ogawa, 2009; Sanders &

Simpson, 2005). Furthermore, Sanders and Simpson (2005) note that states not using the ISLLC

standards show marked similarities.

The ISLLC standards, which placed great emphasis on the instructional leadership responsibilities of

administrators, have provided a common vision for effective educational leadership. For example,

approximately half of the states in the US have mandated that aspiring administrators take and pass a

standardized examination as a condition of attaining their administrative licenses (Adams & Copland,

2005). Of these states, 16 require the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) developed by the

Educational Testing Service (ETS), which is aligned with the ISLLC standards (McCarthy & Forsyth,

2009). Furthermore, these standards have provided states with leverage to implement signiﬁcant

changes in their program accreditation policies and processes and to mandate reviews of their

approved leadership preparation programs (Murphy, 2003). At the national level, the National Council

for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) educational leadership specialty area, conducted

by the Educational Leadership Licensure Consortium (ELLC), has used a modiﬁed version of these

standards to guide their leadership preparation program reviews since 2001.

6 NPBEA is currently comprised of a representative from the following associations: American Association

of Colleges of Education (AACTE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of

School Business Managers (ASBM), 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 Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS),

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), National Council of Professors of Educational

Administration (NCPEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), and University Council for Educational

Administration (UCEA).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

The extensive use of the ISLLC standards to guide leadership preparation, practice, and evaluation has

solidiﬁed their role as the de facto national leadership standards. As such, the ISLLC standards have

not only served as a basis for developing a coherent leadership development pipeline, but their almost

universal use by states as a guide for the preparation, practice, and evaluation of educational leaders

enables comparisons across states (CCSSO, 2008a).

The standards, however, have not been immune to criticism. Indeed, a wide range of concerns has

been raised over the years. Some of the more signiﬁcant and recurring concerns include a lack of

direct connection between the leadership standards and student achievement gains (Davis, Darling-

Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Gronn, 2003); the omission of speciﬁc areas such as school

technology leadership; the under-speciﬁcation of criteria to be met (Keeler, 2002; Leithwood &

Steinback, 2005); the lack of consideration given to the role of context in leadership practices (English,

2003; Gronn, 2003); an assumption that leadership is provided by a single person (Pitre & Smith, 2004);

and, the failure to identify the empirical knowledge/research upon which the standards are based

(Achilles & Price, 2001; Hess, 2003; Waters & Grubb, 2004).

On balance, many of the above concerns have been countered, explained, or justiﬁed by ISLLC

supporters (see, for example, Murphy, 1999; 2002; 2003; 2005; Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000).

Addressing some of the most common criticisms, Murphy (2005) highlighted an important focus of the

original ISLLC work group, “The goal has been to generate a critical mass of energy to move school

administration out of its 100-year orbit and to reposition the profession around leadership for learning”

(p. 180). Perhaps more importantly, speciﬁc efforts have been made to address issues such as the

under-speciﬁcation of general criteria and the failure to identify the empirical research base upon which

the standards are built.

With regard to the former, a sub-group of CCSSO representing 24 different states, SCEL, created

Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b). This document

articulates concrete expectations for the practice of educational leaders in various roles at different

points in their careers and was designed as a guidebook for states implementing the ISLLC standards

in the new education context of the time. In terms of the ﬁnal criticism, two efforts have been made

to ensure that the ISLLC and ELCC standards are anchored to the empirical research on educational

leadership. These efforts are described below.

Recognizing the need to ensure the relevancy and currency of such an important set of standards,

the NPBEA voted in 2005 to review and potentially revise both the ISLLC standards and the ELCC

Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership. The ISLLC standards were updated and

revised in 2008. Led by Richard Flannary (NASSP) and Joe Simpson (CCSSO), a steering committee

made up of representatives from each of the NPBEA member organizations named one representative

to collaboratively embark upon this work (CCSSO, 2008a). In addition to soliciting input from

educational leaders, researchers, and other leadership stakeholder groups, the steering committee

created an expert panel to “consider research in the ﬁeld of educational leadership related to the

standards, review recommendations from stakeholder organizations in NPBEA, recommend research-

based changes, and articulate the research base” (NPBEA, 2006).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

As a result of this process, in 2008 the NPBEA adopted a slightly revised version of the ISLLC standards,

renamed the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (NPBEA, 2006; Young, 2008). The

previously mentioned CCSSO report, Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders,

was named as a companion guide to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008. The

explicit description of individual ISLLC standard expectations through dispositions, elements, and

indicators helped to operationalize the policy standards at a more granular level. Subsequently, NPBEA

designed a similar process to revise the ELCC preparation program standards and worked with the

University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) to ensure that the revised standards were

based on current research concerning effective educational leadership (Young & Mawhinney, 2012).

A good deal has changed in the decade and a half since the original publication of the ISLLC Standards

for School Leaders (CCSSO, 1996). Standards and accountability issues have moved from the margins to

the center of educational discourse, not only in K-12 schools and districts, but in college and university

preparation programs as well. Moreover the pace of change in educational policy and practice has

quickened. Indeed, since the revision of the 1996 ISLLC standards in 2008, several important federal

and state level policy movements have emerged with signiﬁcant implications for the practice of

educational leaders.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section III

A Change in the Context for School Leaders

As a nation, our expectations for student learning have never been higher. Students are

expected to know more and be able to do more with what they know than has previously been

the case. These expectations, which have been expanding for some time, now, have significant

implications for educators, particularly educational leaders. “Mounting demands are rewriting

administrators’ job descriptions every year, making them more complex than ever” (CCSSO,

2008a, p. 3).

Notably, the key rationale for updating the 1996 ISLLC standards (CCSSO, 1996) to the

Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 7 was a significant increase in performance

expectations for education leaders. With the nation’s implementation of President George W.

Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001,8 the responsibilities of educational leadership

shifted and expanded significantly. Indeed, state and federal requirements to increase student

learning shifted the overarching role of school leader from managing orderly environments

to leading instruction. Furthermore, the continued existence of management responsibilities

necessitated more collective and distributive leadership models. School and district leaders have

been expected to shape a collective vision of student success, to create a school culture that

promised success for each and every student, and to purposefully distribute leadership roles and

responsibilities to other administrators and teachers in their schools so that teaching and learning

would improve and the highest levels of student achievement would be realized.

The implementation of NCLB has been followed by the adoption and implementation of several

other high impact educational initiatives and policies. Thus, while it has been only five years since

the release and implementation of the ISLLC 2008 standards, the role of education leaders and

the context in which they lead is dramatically different.

There are four primary catalysts driving the changes our education leaders are experiencing, and

each is described below:

1. The Common Core State Standards were developed as a result of state education leaders

coming to consensus in 2008 on the need for fewer, higher, clearer standards for all students.

These standards provide the basis of an education for all students that prepare them to

graduate from high school college-and-career ready. The National Governors Association

(NGA) and CCSSO led the development of the standards. The standards were released for

state adoption on June 2, 2010.9

7 http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

8 http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

9 http://www.corestandards.org/

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

2. The $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT)10 contest was created to spur innovation and

reforms in state and local district K-12 education. It is funded by the U.S. Department

of Education Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009 and was announced by U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of

Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. Nineteen states have been awarded funding

for satisfying certain educational policies, such as the development of rigorous standards

and better assessments; adoption of better data systems to provide schools, teachers,

and parents with information about student progress; support for teachers and school

leaders to become more effective; and increased emphasis and resources for the rigorous

interventions needed to turn around the lowest-performing schools. The RTTT initiative

prompted 48 states to adopt a set of common standards for K-12 education, and to adopt

new strategies for educator evaluation.

3. The March 2010 Blueprint for Reform communicated President Obama’s vision for the

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In this blueprint,

the President communicated the moral imperative that every child in America deserves a

world-class education. This imperative was described as the key for securing a more equal,

fair, and just society. In his own words he asserts: “We must do better. Together, we must

achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college

completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for

ourselves – this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates

from high school well prepared for college and a career. This effort will require the skills

and talents of many, but especially our nation’s teachers, principals, and other school

leaders. Our goal must be to have a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal

in every school.”11

4. While the President’s Blueprint for Reform has yet to result in reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it did purposefully shape the voluntary

2011-2014 ESEA Flexibility Program which allows states to submit ESEA Flexibility

Requests in order to better focus on improving student learning and increasing the

quality of instruction. “This voluntary opportunity provides educators and State and local

leaders with flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous

and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes

for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of

instruction. This flexibility is intended to build on and support the significant state and

local reform efforts already under way in critical areas such as transitioning to college-

and career-ready standards and assessments; developing systems of differentiated

recognition, accountability, and support; and, evaluating and supporting teacher and

principal effectiveness.”12

10 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

11 A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, March 2010.

See page 1 of http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/.

12 http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-ﬂexibility/index.html

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

These four initiatives have made district and school leaders central to a system of accountability

that requires them to ensure that each child is college and career ready upon graduation from high

school and that each teacher effectively meets the diverse learning needs of his/her students on a

daily basis. Furthermore, school principals and district administrators are expected to lead the full

implementation of the new CCSS, which will require the transformation of instruction, the use of

new assessments, and the adoption and implementation of new educator evaluation and support

systems. In sum, today’s leaders must engage in the practice of continuous school improvement

and support that leverages the highest levels of student learning and the most impactful teacher

instructional practice.

There is no doubt that policy leaders at the federal, state, and local levels expect more out

of today’s educational leaders. In December 2012, CCSSO released a new report, titled Our

Responsibility, Our Promise: Transforming Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession, which

serves as a call to action for states and educator preparation programs to ensure that our principals

are school-ready.

A school-ready principal is ready on day one to blend their energy, knowledge, and professional

skills to collaborate and motivate others to transform school learning environments in ways that

ensure all students will graduate college and career ready. With other stakeholders, they craft

the school’s vision, mission, and strategic goals to focus on and support high levels of learning

for all students and high expectations for all members of the school community.

To help transform schools, they lead others in using performance outcomes and other data

to strategically align people, time, funding, and school processes to continually improve

student achievement and growth, and to nurture and sustain a positive climate and safe

school environment for all stakeholders. They work with others to develop, implement, and

reﬁne processes to select, induct, support, evaluate, and retain quality personnel to serve in

instructional and support roles.

They nurture and support professional growth in others and appropriately share leadership

responsibilities. Recognizing that schools are an integral part of the community, they lead and

support outreach to students’ families and the wider community to respond to community

needs and interests and to integrate community resources into the school (CCSSO, 2012, p. iv).

If you look at new iterations of state and district leadership standards developed in response to this

new policy context, you ﬁnd that the roles and responsibilities of school leaders align with — but are

described very differently from — four years ago when the ISLLC 2008 standards were released. One

striking example is found in the Denver Public Schools Framework for Effective School Leadership

Evidence Guide, Version 2.0: 2011-2012. This framework outlines the new performance expectations

for school principals in the Denver Public Schools (DPS) district and is used within the DPS-University of

Denver principal preparation program for aspiring school leaders.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

The Denver Public Schools leadership expectations and indicators include:

1. Culture and Equity Leadership

a. Leads for equity toward college and career readiness

b. Leads for culture of empowerment, continuous improvement, and celebration

2. Instructional Leadership

a. Leads for high-quality, data-driven instruction by building the capacity of teachers to

lead and perfect their craft

b. Leads for the academic and social-emotional success of all students (linguistically diverse,

students with disabilities, gifted and talented, historically under-achieving students)

c. Leads for effective English Language Acquisition (ELA) programming (ELA Program

School Leaders)

3. Human Resource Leadership

a. Identiﬁes, develops, retains, and dismisses staff in alignment with high expectations for

performance

b. Applies teacher and staff performance management systems in a way that ensures a culture

of continuous improvement, support, and accountability

4. Strategic Leadership

a. Leads the school’s Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals to support college readiness for all

students

b. Distributes leadership to inspire change in support of an empowered school culture

5. Organizational Leadership

a. Strategically aligns people, time, and money to drive student achievement

b. Ensures effective communications with and between all staff and stakeholders

6. External Leadership

a. Actively advocates for members of the school community and effectively engages family

and community

b. Demonstrates professionalism and continuous professional growth

Educational stakeholders agree that schools need leaders who can support student success and teacher

effectiveness. How such needs are translated into leadership standards, however, has changed over the

years with slight differentiations across state and local contexts. The DPS example provided above offers

an alternative way of thinking about the work of school leaders in light of the current educational context.

Although a mapping of the DPS standards to ISLLC 2008 demonstrates marked similarity, the DPS example

raises questions about which leadership performances to emphasize as primary, how expectations should

be articulated, and what supervisors and evaluators should look for as evidence of effective practice.

In addition to the DPS framework, there were other striking examples of new district leadership standards

from the other Wallace Foundation Principal Pipeline Initiative districts that provided very rich illustrations of

what effective leadership practice needs to look like in today’s educational context. The difference between

these district standards and the ISLLC 2008 standards prompted an investigation into the Principal Pipeline

Districts’ leadership standards development process, which is presented in the next section of this report.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section IV

The Development of Leadership Standards in Cutting Edge Districts:

Deﬁning the New Role of Principals

As Tricia McManus, a district administrator in Hillsboro County Public Schools, shared, “Standards

are only as good as how they are put to use.” In an effort to understand how states and districts

are using the ISLLC 2008 standards in the development of their effective leadership systems,

the leadership development and evaluation work of several districts with strong leadership

development pipelines were examined. The practice of these districts, which are participating in

The Wallace Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative, is of particular interest because the districts

stand out among others in the nation as providing cutting edge thinking and action around the

development of strong leadership pipelines.

In our investigation, we worked to gain an understanding of the districts’ leadership development

work, particularly around the development and use of standards. Specifically, we examined

recently developed district leadership standards, investigated how they were developed, probed

explanations for why they were developed, and explored how they were used within the cutting

edge districts leadership pipeline work. To assist our efforts in gaining insight into the above

questions, we first surveyed district personnel. We then held a focus group interview with key

informants from each district, and, finally, followed up with individual key informants concerning

information or resources specific to their district’s work. More information on our information

gathering efforts and findings follow.

In an effort to understand why districts developed new leadership standards and how they

used them, we administered an electronic survey (Survey Monkey) to the primary developers of

the leadership standards in each of the six pipeline districts: Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North

Carolina; Denver; Gwinnett County in Georgia; Hillsborough County in Florida; New York City;

and, Prince George’s County in Maryland. Respondents to this survey included Rashidah Morgan

(Charlotte-Mecklenburg); John Youngquist (Denver); Glenn Pethel (Gwinnett County); Tricia

McManus (Hillsborough County); Maria Esponda (New York City); Lorraine Madala and Pamela

Shetley (Prince George’s County). The survey was also administered to five other districts that

were first generation Wallace Foundation grant recipients. In addition to the survey, we facilitated

an extended focus group with the six pipeline district respondents to collect more information

pertaining to their use of the ISLLC standards, the purpose of developing a revised set of

leadership standards and their use, and the importance of tools to support the implementation of

the new leadership standards.

District representatives explained that their standards development work was motivated by a need to

highlight and deﬁne the changing role of today’s principal, respond to leadership needs speciﬁc to their

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

district’s context, and ensure the alignment between the different elements of a principal pipeline.13 In

order to meet these needs, they initiated a leadership standards development process that included

reviewing, analyzing, and/or mapping their district or state’s current standards; gaining stakeholder

and/or expert input at one or more stages of the process; drafting and revising standards based on

stakeholder input; and, in some cases, piloting. Districts included a variety of stakeholders in their

leadership standards development process.

During the extended focus group, districts were asked to design an ideal process for developing

standards. They were asked to provide details concerning how the standards would be used as well as

what the development process would look like. They were also asked to articulate key steps, identify

who would be the critical partners, and articulate the goals of developing new standards. Their

responses were characterized by a desire for inclusiveness, contextual relevancy, and thoroughness.

The following excerpts illustrate these characteristics.

•New York City responded that the ideal process needs to be district dependent and include

a range of perspectives such as union partners, principals, principal supervisors, private

partners, state, and higher education.

•Hillsborough shared that in their process, decisions were always taken back to their current

principals to vet as the new standards were being developed. This created ownership.

Hillsborough has a lot of competencies that they’ve narrowed down to just nine for selection

and hiring.

•Gwinnett emphasized the value of research and including outside experts. Joe Murphy

(Vanderbilt University) and Steve Tozer (University of Illinois at Chicago) were named.

•New York City reminded us that in addition to having a diverse group of partners participating in the

development process, it is critical to gather a “spectrum of experience” from ﬁrst year principals

to veteran principals. A principal’s 1st year is very different from their 3rd or 6th year. Some external

partners New York City used were Bank Street, Teachers College, New Leaders, and New York City

Leadership Academy. The goal of the standards development process was to build coherence

around common language and understanding. It is important to work toward simplicity and

make sure the standards are relevant to what principals are actually engaging in.

•Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools included Assistant Principals in their discussions. A leadership

facilitator outside the ﬁeld of education facilitated their discussions.

•Prince George’s County Schools said the process lets them look at the importance of standards

and how they relate to performance. The district is able to see how they can build leader

capacity with the standards and use the standards as a lever to drive practice.

13 According to The Wallace Foundation, a strong principal pipeline has four aligned components: 1) Deﬁning

the job of the principal and assistant principal. Districts create clear, rigorous job requirements detailing what

principals and assistant principals must know and do. These research-based standards underpin training, hiring,

and on-the-job evaluation and support. 2) High-quality training for aspiring school leaders. “Pre-service” principal

training programs, run by universities, nonproﬁts or districts, recruit and select only the people with the potential

and desire to become effective principals and provide them with high-quality training. 3) Selective hiring. Districts

hire only well-trained candidates to be school leaders. 4) Leader evaluation and on-the-job support. Districts

regularly evaluate principals and provide professional development, including mentoring, that aims to help novice

principals overcome weaknesses pinpointed in evaluations.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

•Denver Public Schools said that the presence of standards is valuable in evidencing

effectiveness. Denver is undergoing its second standards revision process.

•Gwinnett County Schools shared that research played a great role in their process (i.e., The

Wallace Foundation research on school leadership (e.g., Leithwood, et. Al; McREL; Dr. James

Stronge from the College of William and Mary, etc.). Research provides the parameters for the

standards.

•New York City communicated that the role of the leader is at the forefront to impact

student achievement; you need to constantly bring partners together to review research

and our work.

It was clear that all of the districts used the ISLLC 2008 standards at some time during their

development process. In most cases, ISLLC was used in addition to state leadership standards;

other districts’ leadership standards; the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education’s Core

Competencies and Key Processes; and, leadership standards or frameworks developed by McREL, New

Leaders, and the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals (NBPTS, 2010).

During the extended focus group, districts were asked to elaborate on how the ISLLC standards

inﬂuenced thinking in their district around leadership standards.

•Prince George’s County conducted an inquiry process to start and created a matrix of key

principal behaviors and folded in the ISLLC standards after that; New York City developed

their own school leadership competencies and then cross walked those to ISLLC and looked

at how these competencies inform the work of the principals and how they would be used in

their leader evaluation process. New York City is now creating a Leadership Framework to

create coherence and adjust to the new expectations for principals in today’s context.

•Gwinnett County, like New York City, explained that their leadership standards development

work was an extension of work that began in their district seven years ago when they

asked the question: What are the knowledge, skills, and competencies of effective

leaders? Gwinnett wanted to narrow their focus and get a more clearly deﬁned set of

standards. They worked with James Stronge from the College of William and Mary to explore

the qualities of effective principals. Gwinnett’s design inﬂuenced standards development

work at the state level, which has led to the state’s adoption of leader standards and

indicators.

•Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools began with a state mandated principal evaluation instrument,

which was informed by the 7 standards from McREL and grounded in ISLLC. Charlotte-

Mecklenburg spent their time examining the purpose of standards and competencies and

how they translated into the district. They explored the competencies that were essential

to being a successful leader in the district. These competencies were then aligned to the

standards. They also developed indicators (examples of effective leader behavior).

When asked how the ﬁeld might beneﬁt from new leadership policy standards if they were more

reﬂective of the adaptations within the pipeline districts, several ideas were shared. For example,

Gwinnett County explained that the principal pipeline standards exempliﬁed precision and

simplicity and those standards need to be made simple so that there is precision pertaining to the

indicators, ratings, and scoring, and rubrics. Hillsborough cautioned, though, the importance of the

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

standards extends beyond what the standards say. Rather, what’s most important is what’s done with

the standards. They need to be used as a through-line for all aspects of the leader pipeline.

The districts explained that they planned to use their district leadership standards throughout the

principal/leader pipeline selection, development, and evaluation process. In a few cases they described

speciﬁc individual steps (e.g., professional development), but generally noted that the standards were

used throughout. Interestingly, there was no consensus among the districts that some standards

were more important than others, although some districts cited instructional leadership as critical. A

few districts mentioned visioning and culture, strategic leadership, micropolitical leadership, human

resources, climate, planning, and assessment.

Districts agreed that their new standards set the expectations for principal/leader performance and the

evaluation process. Generally, districts viewed the standards as a basis for their leadership evaluation

and support system. To assist principals/leaders in meeting this new set of expectations, the districts

understood that support was absolutely necessary. As a matter of fact, the district respondents believed

that the support should be yearlong and personalized, and could include such strategies as SAM (School

Administrative Assistant), coaching, and professional development for leaders and supervisors.

In support of implementation, the districts discussed the need for particular tools or resources they

would require. These resources included examples of the leadership standards in action; performance

rubrics; electronic tools to track performance; calibration tools; and, resources from The Wallace

Foundation. Some districts already had developed or were planning to develop performance

rubrics of their own. In addition, districts discussed other tools that they had developed including

leadership standards maps; electronic evaluation forms; interview questions; school match documents;

performance criteria/indicators; and performance examples.

During the extended focus group, districts were asked: What will successful implementation of

your new leadership standards look like in your district? What tools are most critical in supporting

successful implementation?

•Hillsborough – Has created selection competency rubrics for leader performance across the

career continuum. Rubrics are most helpful.

•Prince George’s County – Wants a tool that captures the “spirit of the leader” and provides

the overall story. Is there a way to tell the story of the quintessential leader? We talked about

concrete competencies and drilled down into detail, but we want more of an emotional story.

We need leader proﬁles and how the standards support them.

•Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools – Need tools to roll out information on standards that are

contextual for the district. Competencies mean different things to different people.

•Denver Public Schools – The implementation of leader competencies drives the curriculum of

Denver’s principal residency program. Stories have been documented on the growth of the

residents by using the “Individual Leadership Compact” that residents develop and continually

revise. The compacts identify the strengths and gaps of the resident using competencies. The

“Individual Leadership Compact” becomes the story of their residency and growth.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

It is clear that the pipeline districts are very committed to implementing their new leadership

standards; however, it appeared that little thought had been given to developing a process for

redesigning the standards in the future to keep them current and responsive to ongoing changes in

the education context.

Districts expect that their new leadership standards will result in higher quality leadership and improved

leadership evaluation and performance over the short and long term. There were a few districts that

said the new leadership standards identiﬁed common expectations for leadership, and one district even

claimed to already be seeing changes in leadership effectiveness. None of the districts discussed the

impact on student achievement although one district said that it would be unlikely that they would be

able to identify leaders by student achievement in the near future.

A survey administered by CGCS includes a look at the role leadership standards play in relation to

evaluation systems put in place for principals in the nation’s largest urban districts. The ﬁndings from

this survey are discussed in Section V of this report.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

“

Section V

Large Urban Districts Putting Leadership Standards to Work in

Principal Evaluation Systems

As part of the effort to develop a deeper understanding of the use of standards in leadership

evaluation and development efforts, CGCS surveyed close to 70 large urban districts on issues

concerning their leadership evaluation practices, specifically the ways principals are supported

and evaluated within large urban district contexts. The following excerpt from the report shares

the key findings shared within the CGCS’s survey report titled Principal Evaluation and Principal

Supervisor (Casserly, Lewis, Simon, Uzzell, & Palacios, 2013, p. 1). For the full report, see the link

provided in Appendix L.

OVERVIEW

“Principals serve as both instructional and administrative leaders in their schools. Their

roles and responsibilities vary from managing school compliance issues to facilitating

and assisting teachers with their instructional duties. In order to support principals in

public schools, district leaders and others are working to build the kinds of professional

development, organizational structures, and supports principals need. Moreover, big

city school systems and others continue to debate how to evaluate and hold principals

accountable for achieving results.

In the fall of 2012, CSCG received a grant from The Wallace Foundation to investigate the

ways principals are supported and evaluated in large urban school districts and districts

that participate in the Wallace leadership initiative. This involves taking a closer look at

the roles and responsibilities of principal supervisors — defined here as individuals who

directly oversee and/or evaluate the performance of principals.

This interim report summarizes the results of a survey administered to district staff in

these positions in the fall of 2012. These results will be followed up with a second report

detailing the findings of extensive site visits to the six districts participating in The

Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative.14 This report does not provide recommendations or

identify best practices, but seeks to present an overview of the ways districts support the

critical work performed by principals and their supervisors.” (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 1)

14 The six pipeline districts are Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina; Denver; Gwinnett County (near

Atlanta) in Georgia; Hillsborough County (near Tampa) in Florida; New York City; and Prince George’s County

(near Washington, DC) in Maryland. Two districts – Gwinnett County and Prince Georges County – are not CGCS-

member districts.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

“

METHODOLOGY

“CGCS surveyed its 67 member urban public school districts along with two other school systems

that are part of The Wallace Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative, but are not members of CGCS.

The survey was sent to superintendents in each district and was conducted via Survey Monkey.

Superintendents were asked to forward the survey to staff member(s) who best ﬁt the “principal

supervisor” role. The instrument remained in the ﬁeld between October 10 and November 26, 2012,

and multiple reminders were sent to boost response rates.

Surveys with usable data were received from 41 of the 67 CGCS member districts and the two other

non-member Wallace pipeline districts for a response rate of nearly 60 percent. It is important to note

that most districts have more than one principal supervisor, so the total number of responses involved

135 individuals in 41 districts.

In general, the survey asked for information about the characteristics and roles of principal supervisors,

the professional development provided to them, and the perceived effectiveness of their principal-

evaluation system. The survey also asked respondents to indicate how these roles and responsibilities

had changed between 2010 and June 2012. Otherwise, all results apply to the school year ending

in June 2012. Apart from selected data on the numbers of principal supervisors, all other data are

reported in the aggregate rather than by district.” (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 1)

PRINCIPAL EVALUATIONS

•Principal supervisors reported having principal-evaluation systems in place in their districts for an

average of 7 years. These systems were reported to have been in place anywhere from 1 year to 31

years. Some 13 districts reported that their principal-evaluation systems had only been in place for

a single year, which suggests that this is a new phenomenon for many districts. (Figure 8) (Casserly,

et al., 2013, p. 13)

•Principal supervisors reported having an evaluation system in place for assistant principals for an

average of 8 years. The total number of years these systems had been in place ranged from 1 to 31

years. The similarity in the ﬁgures for principals and assistant principals suggests that the evaluation

systems for principals and assistant principals were often developed simultaneously. (Figure 9)

(Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•Approximately 96 percent of principal supervisors said that the purpose of their district’s principal-

evaluation system was to improve principal effectiveness; 79 percent said that the purpose was to

identify items for ongoing principal professional growth for individual principals; 74 percent said the

purpose was to make decisions about principal retention; and, 65 percent indicated that the purpose

was to identify items for ongoing professional growth for all principals. Very few reported that the

purpose of the principal-evaluation systems was to make decisions about principal pay, merit pay, or

promotions. (Figure 10) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•61 percent of responding principal supervisors reported that their district’s principal-evaluation

system was created by their own school district. Some 22 percent indicated that they were required

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

“

to use their state’s system, and 10 percent reported that their districts modiﬁed someone else’s

evaluation system or purchased it from a developer. (Figure 11) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•10 responding districts (not principal supervisors) reported that their principal-evaluation systems

were based solely on their state’s standards; 3 districts said they originated solely from ISLLC

standards; and, 1 district reported that its system was developed internally. Principal supervisors

from 26 districts cited multiple sources. It is highly likely that respondents did not know the origin

of their principal-evaluation systems or did not know which state standards were also based on

ISLLC. In fact, 18 of the 26 districts indicating that their standards came from multiple sources

also cited ISLLC in addition to other standards. (Table 8) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•Over 80 percent of principal supervisors rated the following components of their principal-

evaluation systems as being effective or very effective: setting annual principal goals, gauging

student performance on state assessments, and having written instruments completed by the

principal supervisor. Some 12 percent indicated that having feedback from more than one

principal supervisor was not very effective. And components related to teacher retention were

most often not included in principal-evaluation systems, a ﬁnding that warrants additional

investigation because of the need to retain top talent. (Figure 12) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•At least 50 percent of principal supervisors strongly agreed with statements that principals were

involved in creating their evaluation systems and there was a mechanism for principals to provide

feedback annually to district leaders. They were least likely to agree with statements indicating

that their principal-evaluation systems were piloted in a few schools before being rolled out district

wide, and that there were rewards or consequences for performance on the evaluation system.

(Figure 13) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•Approximately 35 percent of principal supervisors reported that 31 to 50 percent of their principal-

evaluation system was based on student assessment results; and, 16 percent stated that they

were based on principal evaluation of teachers. Interestingly, 29 percent reported that principal

evaluations of teachers were not included in the principal-evaluation systems, suggesting a

mismatch between the evaluation of principals and the evaluation of teachers. In addition, the

results indicate that community and parent engagement counted for less than 30 percent of

principal evaluations in a substantial number of cases. (Figure 14) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 13)

•Some 93 percent of principal supervisors reported that their principals received both written and

oral feedback. 5 percent or less reported only one mode of feedback. (Figure 15) (Casserly, et al.,

2013, p. 14)

•58 percent of principal supervisors graded their principal-evaluation systems as excellent or good

(A or B); 31 percent graded them as average (C); and, 11 percent graded them as poor (D) or very

poor (F). (Figure 16) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 14)

•Over 50 percent of principal supervisors who graded their principal-evaluation system as an A

or B also rated components of that system, such as having written instruments completed by

supervisors, self-assessments completed by principals, observations of principal interactions with

staff, and annual goals for principals, as effective. (Table 9) (Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 14)

•23 percent of principal supervisors indicated that principals needed additional supports in

leadership development (e.g., teacher development, evaluation strategies, and progress

monitoring) in order to be more effective and improve student achievement. (Table 10)

(Casserly, et al., 2013, p. 14)

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section VI

Leadership Research Since 2007

The development of the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, updating the 1996 ISLLC

standards, was informed by a body of empirical research and scholarship documenting the fact that

“school leaders are crucial to improving instruction and raising student achievement” (CCSSO, 2008a,

p. 3). A panel of educational leadership experts and scholars created by the NPBEA and supported by a

grant from The Wallace Foundation identiﬁed a research base composed of “empirical research reports

as well as policy analyses, leadership texts, and other resources considered to be ‘craft knowledge’ and

‘sources of authority in the ﬁeld’ (p. 7). Speciﬁcally, “ISLLC 2008 reﬂects the input of over 100 research

projects and studies, which helped guide the standards revision process and, ultimately, inﬂuence

the standards presented in this document” (p. 9). This research base highlighted the importance of

knowledge for each ISLLC standard.

Subsequently, the NPBEA authorized a similar process to ensure the alignment of the ELCC preparation

program standards and the anchoring of the standards to current research concerning effective

educational leadership (Young & Mawhinney, 2012). A research team was developed through UCEA

to carry out this review, analysis, and anchoring work. The research team examined evidence from

empirical, scholarly, craft, and expert research as well as syntheses of research for each of the ELCC

standards for school building and district level leadership. Based on these examinations, a set of

commentaries were developed with the purpose of providing guidance concerning the knowledge and

skills associated with quality school and district leadership, and thus the implications of this knowledge

base for the preparation of educational leaders (Young & Mawhinney, 2012).

The importance of the standards’ focus on student learning was conﬁrmed by several high visibility

research reports, including a 2006 report for The Wallace Foundation, titled Leadership for Learning:

Making Connections Among State, District and School Policies and Practices, conﬁrmed that among the

standards are the core elements of quality leadership. The report concluded that “standards that spell

out clear expectations about what leaders need to know and to do to improve instruction and learning

and that form the basis for holding them accountable for results” are critically important to quality

leadership development (as cited in CCSSO, 2008a, p. 10).

The development of the ISLLC 2008 standards was also informed by a number of important research

studies and syntheses documenting the important connection between leadership and student

learning. Chief among these was a 2007 Wallace Foundation report, A Bridge to School Reform. This

report identiﬁed research demonstrating the connection between school leadership and student

achievement. Other reviews of research conﬁrming this connection include Marzano, Waters, and

McNulty (2005); Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter (2007); and, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003).

While the ISLLC 2008 standards maintained the “footprint” of the original 1996 ISLLC standards, the

key domains of knowledge required of leaders seeking to impact student learning and achievement

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

was enhanced and informed by an extensive review of research by Leithwood, Seashore, Anderson,

and Whalstrom (2004). This report, How Leadership Inﬂuences Student Learning, documented evidence

of direct and indirect leadership effects on student learning. The report highlighted several speciﬁc

aspects of a leaders’ work that led to such effects, including focusing faculty attention on goals,

infusing the school culture with a sense of purpose, and providing “targeted support, modeling best

practice, and offering intellectual stimulation” to teachers (as cited in CCSSO, 2008a, p. 9). This shift

from the focus of the original 1996 ISLLC standards was signiﬁcant, focusing the work of leadership on

promoting student achievement and success.

Notably, a Wallace Foundation report by Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, and Orr (2007)

shared a complimentary set of ﬁndings for leadership preparation. That is, “successful leadership

preparation programs—particularly those that train principals who are willing and able to work in our

most challenging schools—are modeled and organized around clear goals for system wide values and

learning” (as cited in CCSSO, 2008a, pp. 9-10).

Although only a few years have passed since the work of the ISLLC expert panel and ELCC research team

was conducted, much has changed in terms of education and educational policy. Such changes, as we

discussed in a previous section, must be given consideration in any conversation of leadership standards.

Furthermore, any serious-minded conversation about the expansion, revision, or redevelopment of

standards for educational leaders must emerge from a rich understanding of the research base on

educational leadership practice. The research summarized in this document builds directly from the

previous ISLLC and ELCC research efforts and includes more recent evidence from empirical studies and

literature reviews of the knowledge base for each of the ISLLC and ELCC standards.

The research base on educational leadership has continued to expand and evolve, and it is “the intent

of NPBEA to continue to reﬁne the process of policy standard revision so that the standards reﬂect

changes in the knowledge base” (CCSSO, 2008a, p. 8). As noted above, a research team developed

by the UCEA on behalf of the NPBEA, analyzed the existing base of research and mapped it to the

ELCC standards. The work of the research team has been extended to the ISLLC standards and through

2012. The analyses, commentaries, and citations highlight research “informing craft knowledge that is

derived from a foundation of ‘doing’ school administration. It is knowledge gained from application

and systematic practice” (Young & Mawhinney, 2012). The commentaries were designed to provide

guidance in specifying the knowledge and skills associated with best practice in educational leadership

and, as such, to inform conversations concerning the potential expansion, revision, or overhaul of the

educational leadership standards.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 1

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC/ELCC: Standard One was conducted by Dianne Taylor

at the Louisiana State University, working on behalf of UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the

research base supporting the practice of building and district level leaders is taken from Taylor (2012a;

2012b). For a more detailed analysis and a full reference list, see Taylor’s full contribution in Young and

Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC /ELCC Building-Level Standard 1.0

Evidence presented in support of Standard 1 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must

have knowledge of how to promote the success of students by understanding principles for the

development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school vision of learning. Stewardship

is a concept of leadership as a servant-leader advanced by Robert Greenleaf, who believed that the

best way to lead was by serving. Stewardship involves using foresight; employing power ethically;

seeking consensus in group decisions where possible; and, envisioning leadership as employing

persuasion and building relationships based on trust (Frick, 2004, pp. 338-345). Education leaders

seeking to develop a school vision of learning are aware that a school culture supporting this vision

is constructed of a set of “behavioral norms that exemplify the best that a school stands for. It means

building an institution in which people believe strongly, with which they identify personally, and to

which they gladly render their loyalty” (Razik & Swanson, 2010, p. 123). Education leaders recognize

that schools do not have a culture, they are a culture “constructed through aesthetic means and taking

aesthetic form” (Samier, 2011, p. 277). The culture of a school consists of thought, language, the use of

symbols and images and such other aspects as visions, missions, logos, trophies, rituals, legends, and

important celebrations and ceremonies.

To construct a school culture requires knowledge of the importance of shared school vision, mission,

and goals for student success that is documented in the effective schools literature (Clark, Lotto, &

Astuto, 1984; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rosenholtz, 1985; Rutter, Maughan,

Mortimore, & Ouston, 1979), and subsequently in the school improvement literature (Chrispeels, 1992;

Fullan & Miles, 1992; Kurland, Peretz, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010; Lambert, 1998; Leithwood, Begley,

& Cousins, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Murphy Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2007; Powell, Higgins,

Aram, & Freed, 2009; Short & Greer, 1997; Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002; Tillman, 2004). “A school

vision is a public statement that contains four elements: (1) is anchored in a future condition or state;

(2) identiﬁes a clear set of conditions which pertain; (3) is devoid of means, methods, and ‘how-to’s’

but is focused on tangible results; and, (4) projects hope, energy, and destination” (Kaufman, Herman,

&. Watters, 1996, p. 49). The mission of a school is a general statement of the purpose of a school,

which usually indicates a desired condition or destination toward which the school or personnel in

the school strive to realize or attain through their collective and individualized actions. When vision,

mission, and goals are widely shared, student achievement usually increases (Chrispeels, 1992; Harris,

2002; Printy & Marks, 2006; Rutter et al., 1979). This requires conditions of organizational transparency.

The concept means that one can “see through” the actions, beliefs, values, and motivations of leaders.

It implies being open and forthright about who is proposing what, for what purposes, and to what

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

ends. It means that leaders have no “hidden agendas” and that it is clear in their actions who beneﬁts

and who does not from change. Furthermore, it means that school leaders take actions to make sure

meetings are open, agendas are announced in advance, participation is invited, and comments and

recommendations from all are seriously considered.

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 1 was recognized in

the reviews of scholarship informing the development of the ISLLC 2008 standards highlighting the

importance of knowledge “facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship

of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders” (Murphy, 1990). Formation of

the ISLLC 2008 Policy Standards also was based on consideration of the importance of knowledge of

the theoretical foundations for leadership practice (for example, Blanchard et al., 2007; Ulrich, Zenger,

& Smallwood, 1999). Some reviews of scholarship highlighted the importance of knowledge of how to

collaboratively develop and implement a shared vision and mission (Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984). The

importance of knowledge about how to use evidence and data in decision-making was highlighted in

reports informing the formation of the ISLLC 2008 Standards (Creighton, 2007; Knapp, Copland, Plecki,

Portin, 2006; Van Houten, 2003). Other reports conﬁrmed the importance of knowledge of creating

and implementing plans to achieve goals of developing quality programs (Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984).

Education leaders know that “quality begins with intent” (Deming, 1986, p. 5) and “must be built in at

the design stage” (p. 49). A quality program is a well-designed plan to attain ambitious but realistic

goals for a school that are pursued in a timely, prudent, and concerted effort over a sustained period of

time resulting in the realization of those goals.

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 1.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 1 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must

have knowledge of how to promote the success of every student by understanding principles for the

development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a district vision of learning. Stewardship

is a concept advanced by Robert Greenleaf, who believed that the best way to lead was by serving.

Stewardship involves using foresight; employing power ethically; seeking consensus in group decisions

where possible; and, envisioning leadership as employing persuasion and building relationships based

on trust (Frick, 2004, pp. 338-345).

To exercise stewardship candidates must have knowledge of how to develop a broadly shared vision

and mission to guide district decisions and to support change at the school level (Fullan & Miles, 1992;

Honig, Copland, Rainey, Lorton, & Newton, 2010; King, 2004; Kissinger, 2007; Knapp, Copland, &

Swinnerton, 2007; Levine & Stark, 1981; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010; McLaughlin

& Marsh, 1990; Pajak & Glickman, 1989; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Spillane & Thompson, 1997; Togneri &

Anderson, 2003, in King, 2004; Wimpelberg, Teddlie, & Stringﬁeld, 1989), and knowledge of how to

develop trust as a requisite variable in shared visioning and school improvement (Casner-Lotto, 1989;

Honig et al., 2010; Louis & Kruse, 1996, in Firestone & González, 2007; Spillane & Thompson, 1997).

“A district vision is a public statement containing four elements: (1) it is anchored in a future condition

or state; (2) it identiﬁes a clear set of conditions which pertain; (3) it is devoid of means, methods, and

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

‘how-to’s’ but is focused on tangible results; (4) it projects hope, energy, and destination” (Kaufman,

Herman, &. Watters, 1996, p. 49). The mission of a district is a general statement indicating a desired

condition or destination towards, which the district or personnel in the district strive to realize or attain

through their collective and individualized actions.

Candidates must also know how to use evidence to inform district decisions, particularly as decisions

related to learning become standard practice (see Fullan, 1985; Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1998; Knapp

et al., 2007; Pajak & Glickman, 1989), and knowledge of the importance of professional development

to building the organizational capacity needed to support continuous and sustainable district

improvement realized at the school level by teachers and principals (CASS Framework for School

System Success, 2009; Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984; Cuban, 1983; Hallinger & Edwards, 1992; Honig

et al., 2010; Hoyle et al., 1998; King, 2004; Kissinger, 2007; Knapp et al., 2007; Levine & Stark, 1981;

McLaughlin, 1990; Pajak & Glickman, 1989; Pink, 1986; Rorrer, Skrla, & Scheurich, 2008; Spillane &

Thompson, 1997).

Formation of Standard 1 was based on consideration of the importance of knowledge of the theoretical

foundations for leadership practice (for example, Blanchard et al., 2007; Ulrich, Zenger, & Smallwood,

1999). Some reviews of scholarship highlighted the importance of knowledge of how to collaboratively

develop and implement a shared vision and mission (Clark et al., 1984). The importance of knowledge

about how to use evidence in decision-making was highlighted in reports informing the formation of

the ISLLC 2008 Standards (Creighton, 2007; Knapp, Copland, Plecki, & Portin, 2006; Van Houten, 2003).

Other reports conﬁrmed the importance of knowledge of creating and implementing plans to achieve

goals of developing quality programs (Clark et al., 1984). Education leaders know that “quality begins

with intent” (Deming, 1986, p. 5) and “must be built in at the design stage” (p. 49). A quality program

is a well-designed plan to attain ambitious but realistic goals for a school that are pursued in a timely,

prudent, and concerted effort over a sustained period of time resulting in the realization of those goals.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 2

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC /ELCC: Standard Two was conducted by M. Terry Orr of Bank

Street College, working on behalf of UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the research base supporting

the practice of building and district level leaders is taken from Orr (2012a; 2012b). For a more detailed

analysis and a full reference list see Orr’s full contribution in Young and Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC Building-Level Standard 2.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 2 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must have

knowledge of principles for advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional

programs conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. This includes knowledge of

the elements of school culture and ways it can be inﬂuenced to ensure student success and human

development theories, proven learning and motivational theories, and knowledge of how diversity

inﬂuences the learning process (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, La Pointe, & Orr, 2007; Leithwood,

Jantzi, Cofﬁn, & Wilson, 1996). It also includes knowledge of effective leadership practices including

those characterized as instructional leadership, transformational leadership or leading learning, and

knowledge of models of change processes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck & Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2008; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008;

Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Transformational leaders are interested in empowering others to

transcend organizational constraints and imagine a different future. In contrast, transactional leaders

work within system boundaries and stay within the organized hierarchies of subordination designated

within the school or school system.

Standard 2 is informed by research highlighting the importance of knowledge of how to develop

motivating student learning environments (Cotton & Savard, 1980; Murphy & Alexander, 2006). Infusing

technology into leadership practices has become a recognized domain of practical knowledge essential

to effective instructional leadership (Brooks-Young, 2002, 2004). Standard 2 is also informed by research

underscoring the importance of knowledge of curriculum planning. This requires that education leaders

be familiar with theories of curriculum. Curriculum theories are narratives that attempt to answer the

age-old question, “Which knowledge is of most worth?” According to Wraga (2006) there are three

broad types of curriculum theories: (1) philosophical-prescriptive; (2) professional-instrumental; and,

(3) exegetic-academic (p. 251). The philosophical-prescriptive approach seeks to determine the most

important knowledge by denoting the nature of educational purposes. The most obvious example is

the traditional-academic curriculum as described by Mortimer Adler. In the second type of curriculum

theory the approach is to focus on the processes or methods to make decisions about curriculum.

The most famous example is that created by Ralph Tyler. The exegetic-academic is not aimed at

improving curriculum practice, but rather is a way of thinking about academic texts or theoretical lenses

in viewing curriculum. Education leaders draw from curriculum theories to develop a rigorous and

coherent curriculum. They recognize that a curriculum, as an expression of ordered content, should be

constructed or developed following an explicit design rather than simply throwing disparate elements

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

together and hoping they ﬁt somehow at the end. It means curriculum construction with forethought

to obtain well considered outcomes where the whole is greater than the parts, and not simply the

parts clumped together. Education leaders support the expectation that the curriculum will contain the

highest or most difﬁcult elements to consider or to acquire in learning by all students.

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 2 was recognized in the

empirical evidence, craft knowledge, and theoretical writings that supported the development of ISLLC’s

Standard 2 (CCSSO, 2008, p. 18): “promoting the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and

sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional

growth” (Murphy, 1990). Classic theories of motivation (Bandura, 1986; Herzberg, Mauser & Snyderman,

2004, Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1961; Vroom, 1964; Weiner, 1986), social control (Glasser, 1986), and

goals (Ames, 1992) are foundational sources of knowledge for education leaders seeking to nurture a

culture of trust and to motivate faculty and students. There are three levels of educational trust according

to Schmidt (2010). The ﬁrst level of trust is predictability where individuals can rely on established and

predictable behavior. The second level of trust is related to individuals such as leaders who are perceived

as being trustworthy when they exhibit predictable behavior and are responsive to the needs of staff,

parents, and stakeholders. The third level of trust is faith, which consists of emotional security where there

is the expectation that leaders and institutions will keep their promises.

Theories of human development (Armstrong, 2007) and evidence found in case studies of how

improvements in teaching and learning can be achieved (Schmoker, 2006) conﬁrm that both are essential

to effective school leadership. A review of literature by Murphy et al. (2007) on learning centered leadership

concluded that instructionally-focused leadership paired with leadership processes are required for high

performing schools. Earlier reviews found strong evidence that knowledge of leadership approaches to

developing school culture and climate is critically important (Anderson, 1982). Climate has been compared

to the personality of an individual or how a school “feels” when it is experienced holistically. The differing

types of climate were invented as opposed to discovered (Halpin, 1966, p. 131, 138). More recently Conley

deﬁned climate as “the conditions and shared perceptions of organizational variables thought to affect

organizational functioning, such as teacher morale and principal leadership style” (2006, p. 153). Evidence

of the importance of applied knowledge of how to create a culture of trust, learning, and high expectations

was found in scholarship on the impact that leaders have on building learning communities (Boyd &

Hord, 1994). Knowledge of the nature and practices of distributive leadership was identiﬁed as essential

in a number of scholarly works (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, &

Anderson, 2010). Education leaders strive to create a culture of continuous improvement recognizing that

the quest for improvement should not end with any particular state of accomplishment, but rather involves

continuing efforts to attain new or higher levels of attainment with renewed effort.

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 2.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 2 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must have

knowledge of principles for advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a district culture and instructional

program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. Earlier reviews found strong

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

evidence that knowledge of leadership approaches to developing school culture and climate is critically

important (Anderson, 1982). This is supported by more recent scholarship conﬁrming that candidates

must have knowledge of the elements of district culture and ways it can be inﬂuenced to develop

school culture and to ensure student success. Culture is constructed from a set of “behavioral norms

that exemplify the best that a district stands for. It means building an institution in which people believe

strongly, with which they identify personally, and to which they gladly render their loyalty” (Razik &

Swanson, 2010, p. 123). Education leaders recognize that districts do not have a culture; they are a culture

“constructed through aesthetic means and taking aesthetic form” (Samier, 2011, p. 277). The culture of a

district consists of thought, language, the use of symbols and images and such other aspects as visions,

missions, logos, trophies, rituals, legends, and important celebrations and ceremonies. Candidates must

also understand the relationship of culture to climate. Climate has been compared to the personality of

an individual or how a district “feels” when it is experienced holistically. The differing types of climate

were invented as opposed to discovered (Halpin, 1966, p. 131, 138). More recently Conley deﬁned climate

as “the conditions and shared perceptions of organizational variables thought to affect organizational

functioning, such as teacher morale and principal leadership style” (2006, p. 153).

To develop a district culture and climate supportive of enhanced student learning requires knowledge

of creating conditions of organizational transparency. The concept means that one can “see through”

the actions, beliefs, values, and motivations of leaders. It implies being open and forthright about

who is proposing what, for what purposes, and to what ends. It means that leaders have no “hidden

agendas” and that it is clear in their actions who beneﬁts and who does not from change. Furthermore,

it means that district leaders take actions to make sure meetings are open, agendas are announced in

advance, participation is invited, and comments and recommendations from all seriously considered.

Research on the role of district-level educational leaders in developing a district culture and instructional

program is fairly recent. Much of the historical research has focused on districts as the context for

principal’s work or narrowly on the superintendent’s role, but not on the role of district leaders more

generally. A growing body of research, however, shows that when district leaders align and focus their

work in all these areas, they have a strongly positive effect on student learning (Honig et al., 2010;

Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlsrom, 2004; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Togneri & Anderson,

2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The research conﬁrms that candidates must have knowledge of how

to align and focus work on student learning (Honig et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004; Louis et al.,

2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006). This requires

understanding of knowledge of human development theories, proven learning, and motivational theories,

and of how diversity inﬂuences the learning process (Glass, Bjork, & Bruner, 2000; Honig et al., 2010;

Leithwood et al., 2004; Orr, 2006; Resnick & Glennan, 2003; Wallace, 1994). Candidates for district level

leadership must know how to develop motivating student learning environments (Cotton & Savard,

1980; Murphy & Alexander, 2006). Theories of human development (Armstrong, 2007) and evidence

found in case studies of how improvements in teaching and learning can be achieved (Schmoker, 2006)

conﬁrm that both are essential to effective education leadership. A review of literature by Murphy, Elliott,

Goldring, and Porter (2006) on learning-centered leadership concluded that instructionally-focused

leadership paired with leadership processes are required for high performing schools and districts.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Infusing technology into leadership practices has become a recognized domain of practical knowledge

essential to effective instructional leadership (Brooks-Young, 2002, 2004). Central to instructional

leadership is knowledge of curriculum planning. This requires that candidates be familiar with theories

of curriculum. Curriculum theories are narratives that attempt to answer the age-old question, “Which

knowledge is of most worth?” According to Wraga (2006) there are three broad types of curriculum

theories: (1) philosophical-prescriptive; (2) professional-instrumental; and, (3) exegetic-academic (p.

251). The philosophical-prescriptive approach seeks to determine the most important knowledge by

denoting the nature of educational purposes. The most obvious example is the traditional-academic

curriculum as described by Mortimer Adler. In the second type of curriculum theory the approach is

to focus on the processes or methods to make decisions about curriculum. The most famous example

is that created by Ralph Tyler. The exegetic-academic is not aimed at improving curriculum practice,

but rather is a way of thinking about academic texts or theoretical lenses in viewing curriculum.

Education leaders draw from curriculum theories to develop a rigorous and coherent curriculum. They

recognize that a curriculum, as an expression of ordered content, should be constructed or developed

following an explicit design rather than simply throwing disparate elements together and hoping they

ﬁt somehow at the end. It means curriculum construction with forethought to obtain well considered

outcomes, where the whole is greater than the parts and not simply the parts clumped together.

Education leaders support the expectation that the curriculum will contain the highest or most difﬁcult

elements to consider or to acquire in learning by all students.

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 2 was recognized in

the empirical evidence, craft knowledge, and theoretical writings that supported the development

of ISLLC’s Standard 2 (ISLLC, 2008, p. 18), “promoting the success of every student by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning

and staff professional growth” (Murphy, 1990). Classic theories of motivation (Bandura, 1986; Herzberg

& Mauser, 1959, Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1961; Vroom, 1964; Weiner, 1986), social control (Glasser,

1986), and goals (Ames, 1992) are foundational sources of knowledge for candidates seeking to

nurture a culture of trust and to motivate faculty and students. There are three levels of educational

trust according to Schmidt (2010). The ﬁrst level of trust is predictability where individuals can rely on

established and predictable behavior. The second level of trust is related to individuals such as leaders

who are perceived as being trustworthy when they exhibit predictable behavior and are responsive

to the needs of staff, parents, and stakeholders. The third level of trust is faith, which consists of

emotional security where there is the expectation that leaders and institutions will keep their promises.

Evidence of the importance of applied knowledge of how to create a culture of trust, learning, and

high expectations was found in scholarship on the impact that leaders have on building learning

communities (Boyd & Hord, 1994). Knowledge of the nature and practices of distributive leadership was

identiﬁed as essential in a number of scholarly works (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003).

Finally, much of the research on what candidates know (and need to know) about the role and effects

of district-level leadership is reﬂected in survey research about challenges facing the superintendency

(Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, & Foleno, 2001; Glass et al., 2000), and ﬁndings from meta-analyses and

case study research on how district leadership matters to school improvement (Leithwood et al.,

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

2004; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006). This research

conﬁrms that candidates must know how to create a culture of continuous improvement, recognizing

that the quest for improvement should not end with any particular state of accomplishment, but rather

involves continuing efforts to attain new or higher levels of attainment with renewed effort.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 3

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC/ELCC: Standard 3 was conducted by Gary Crow of

Indiana University and Diana Pounder of the University of Central Arkansas, working on behalf of

UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the research base supporting the practice of building and

district level leaders is taken from Pounder and Crow (2012a; 2012b). For a more detailed analysis

and a full reference list, see Pounder and Crow’s full contribution in Young and Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC Building-Level Standard 3.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 3 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must

have knowledge of best practices regarding management of a school organization, operations,

and resources for a safe, efﬁcient, and effective learning environment. This includes knowledge

of effective practices of management and leadership that are associated with improved school

conditions and subsequent school outcomes (Earthman & Lemasters, 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Louis et al., 2010; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Murphy et al. 2007;

Portin, Alejano, Knapp, & Marzolf, 2006). School outcomes are the results that accrue from decisions

or actions from those responsible for leading a school. The results can be expressed in terms of

student learning measures (achievement test scores) or student categorizations such as dropouts,

promotions, graduation rates, etc.

Standard 3 was informed by research conﬁrming the importance of knowledge of human resource

issues, including educator work redesign (e.g., Conley, Fauske, & Pounder, 2004; Crow & Pounder,

2000; Gerber, Finn, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001; Pounder, 1998; Pounder, 1999), educator

recruitment-selection (Pounder, 1989; Pounder, Galvin, & Shepard, 2003; Pounder & Merrill, 2001;

Pounder, King, & Hausman, 2005), educator induction-mentoring-professional development

(Crow & Matthews, 1998), educator appraisal-supervision-evaluation (Stronge & Tucker, 2003;

Tucker & Stronge, 2005), and educator compensation (Odden & Kelley, 2002; Pounder, 1988).

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 3 was recognized

in research informing the formation of the ISLLC 2008 standards, which also found knowledge of

the nature of distributed leadership to be essential (Goleman, Boyatzis, & Mckee, 2002). More

recently Louis et al. (2010) found that distribution of leadership to include teachers, parents,

and district staff is needed in order to improve student achievement. Distributive leadership

is based on the idea that there is a social distribution of tasks associated with leadership in a

school, speciﬁcally that leadership tasks are spread over a group of people in schools beyond the

singular administrator in charge. Distributed leadership approaches do not remove the need for an

effective singular leader, nor do they necessarily reduce the work of the leader. Although there are

many similarities with democratic leadership, distributed leadership is different from democratic

leadership as it accepts power differentials in roles within the schools even as leadership tasks are

dispersed (Woods, 2005, pp. 33-45).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 3.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 3 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must

have knowledge of best practices regarding management of a district organization, operations,

and resources for a safe, efﬁcient, and effective learning environment. This includes knowledge of

how to create systemic management and operations, organize educational improvement efforts,

coordinate accountability systems, and create policy coherence that inﬂuences school outcomes

and student learning (Earthman & Lemasters, 2004; Rorrer et al., 2008; Honig, 2010; Louis et al.,

2010). School outcomes are the results accruing from decisions or actions from those responsible

for leading a school. The results can be expressed in terms of student learning measures

(achievement test scores) or student categorizations such as dropouts, promotions, and graduation

rates. In order to improve school outcomes, candidates must gain knowledge of the importance

of creating systems that focus school personnel and other resources on common goals and create

processes that facilitate effective teaching and learning (Earthman & Lemasters, 2009; Firestone &

Martinez, 2009; Louis et al., 2010; Sipple & Killeen, 2004; Waters & Marzano, 2006).

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 3 was recognized in

research informing the formation of the ISLLC 2008, which also found knowledge of the nature of

distributed leadership to be essential (Goleman, Boyatzis, & Mckee, 2002). Distributive leadership

is based on the idea that there is a social distribution of tasks associated with leadership,

speciﬁcally that leadership tasks are spread over a group of people in schools beyond the singular

administrator in charge. Distributed leadership approaches do not remove the need for an

effective singular leader, nor do they necessarily reduce the work of the leader. Although there are

many similarities with democratic leadership, distributed leadership is different from democratic

leadership as it accepts power differentials in roles within the schools even as leadership tasks are

dispersed (Woods, 2005, pp. 33-45).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 4

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC/ELCC: Standard 4 was conducted by Pamela Tucker at

the University of Virginia, working on behalf of UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the research

base supporting the practice of building and district level leaders is taken from Tucker (2012a; 2012b).

For a more detailed analysis and a full reference list, see Tucker’s full contribution in Young and

Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC Building-Level Standard 4.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 4 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must

have knowledge of strategies for collaboration with faculty and community members, understanding

of diverse community interests and needs, and best practices for mobilizing community resources.

In order to develop strategies for collaboration (Anderson, Christenson & Sinclair, 2004; Barnyak &

McNelly, 2009; Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson & Beegle, 2004; Coalition for Community

Schools, & Institute for Educational Leadership, 2003; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Harris & Chapman,

2002; Harry, 1992), principals must have knowledge about the collection and analysis of evidence

pertinent to the school educational environment (Bustamante, Nelson, & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Epstein,

2005; Halverson, 2010; Knapp, Swinnerton, Copland, & Monpas-Huber, 2006; Wayman & Stringﬁeld,

2006), and knowledge of the needs of students, parents or caregivers (Catsambis, 2002; Christenson,

2004; Fuerstein, 2000; Harris & Chapman, 2002; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Landsman, 2006; Louis

& Miles, 1990; Patrikakou & Weissberg, 2000; Reid, Reid, & Peterson, 2005; Ryan & Martin, 2000).

Candidates understand that conducting a needs assessment requires gathering information through a

process of discovery. This process might involve considering what the community wants the school to

do. Needs assessments also involve processes of noting discrepancies between a current state of affairs

and a desired state of affairs, as in, “Our current levels of reading achievement are not what we want

them to be. What actions must we take to reach the desired levels?”

Research evidence used to support the ISLLC 2008, Standard 4 (p. 18) conﬁrmed that education

leaders require such knowledge when collaborating with faculty and community members, and when

responding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing community support. Reports on

practices in using evidence to inform decision-making highlight the importance knowledge of strategies

for data-based decision making (Creighton, 2007).

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 4.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 4 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must have

knowledge of (a) district strategies for collaboration with faculty, families, and caregivers and district

community partners; (b) diverse community interests and needs; and, (c) best practice for mobilizing

district community resources. Candidates must have knowledge about (a) the collection and analysis

of evidence pertinent to the district educational environment (Bulkley, Christman, Goertz, & Lawrence,

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

2010; Sanders, 2008); (b) the use of appropriate strategies to collect, analyze, and interpret evidence

pertinent to the district environment; and, (c) how to communicate information about the district to

the community (Kowalski, 2003, 2006; Madda et al., 2007; Sanders, 2008). Candidates understand that

conducting a needs assessment requires gathering information through a process of discovery. This

process might involve considering what the community wants the school to do. Needs assessments

also involve processes of noting discrepancies between a current state of affairs and a desired state of

affairs, as in, “Our current levels of reading achievement are not what we want them to be. What actions

must we take to reach the desired levels?”

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 4 was recognized in

research showing that education leaders require such knowledge when collaborating with faculty

and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing

the community. Reports on practices in using evidence to inform decision making highlighted the

importance knowledge of strategies for data-based decision making (Creighton, 2007).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 5

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC/ELCC: Standard 5 was conducted by Michelle D. Young

at the University of Virginia, working on behalf of UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the research

base supporting the practice of building and district level leaders is taken from Young (2012a; 2012b).

For a more detailed analysis and a full reference list, see Young’s full contribution in Young and

Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC Building-Level Standard 5.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 5 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must have

knowledge of how to act with integrity, fairness, and engage in ethical practice. Ethnical practice refers

to the concept that the implementation of leadership actions must not only conform to adherence to

the laws of the state and regulations concerning ﬁdelity to the spirit of such laws, but must also rest

on moral principles of justice and fairness. Ethical practice rests on the moral principles of building

goodness and community grounded in a collective commitment to the pursuit of truth and truthfulness

in operations and personal interactions with others. Education leaders engaging in ethical practice have

knowledge of democratic values, equity, and diversity (Hess, 1993; Gross & Shapiro, 2004; Lopez, 2006;

Papa & Fortune, 2002; Rollow & Bryk, 1993; Theoharis, 2001; Rusch, 1998; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003).

Candidates knowledge of diversity is based on a) the recognition that schools in a democracy serve a

broad range of goals and purposes and that these are sometimes at cross-purposes; b) the recognition

that the children coming to school do not all have the same family, ethnic, racial or religious upbringing

or perceptions; and, c) the valuing of cultural, ethnic, and racial difference as opposed to insisting that

the values of some are promoted while differences in other are negated, undervalued, or devalued.

While a celebration of difference is often recognized in schools, the concept of diversity is more

complicated and complex than mere recognition. It also means confronting the privileges some children

have compared to others who are different, and working to create understanding and ways to confront

the inequities involved (Lopez, 2006, pp. 297-300).

Standard 5 was informed by research conﬁrming that education leaders must have knowledge about

current ethical and moral issues facing education, government, and business and their consequences

(Beck, 1994; Brennan & Brennan, 1988; Evers, 1985; Englert, 1993; Grundy, 1993; Lakomski, 1987;

Militello, Schimmel, & Eberwein, 2009; Nevin, 1979; Smith & Blase, 1991), and knowledge about the

relationship between social justice, school culture, and student achievement (Aspiazu et al., 1998;

Bustamante, Nelson, & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Flanagan et al., 2007; Franke, Isken, & Parra, 2003; Gaitan,

2004; Harry, 1992; Papa & Fortune, 2002; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Theoharis, 2001; Tucker & Herman,

2002; Zirkel, 2008). Fundamentally social justice means fairness, and it represents a perspective in

regard to how “fundamental rights and duties are assigned and on the economic opportunities and

social conditions” which are established “in various sectors of society,” including but not limited to

schools (Rawls, 1971, p. 7).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 5 was recognized

in research on practices that promote social justice identiﬁed as important in the 2008 ISLLC Policy

Standards. Support for the importance of this knowledge was informed by scholarship on practices of

inclusive leadership (Ryan, 2006) and leadership for diversity (Tillman, 2004). If candidates are to model

principles of self-awareness and ethical behavior, they must be aware of the importance of reﬂective

practice (Sparks, 2005). Reﬂective practice is the means by which practitioners gain a greater sense of

self-awareness and perception regarding their beliefs, values, motivations, and actions in relationship to

desired goals or administrative decisions, which subsequently deﬁne their performance and serve as the

focus for improvement over time. A number of theoretical and practice-focused commentaries have also

noted the critical need for candidates to have knowledge of the moral and legal consequences of decision

making (Chouhoud & Zirkel, 2008; Gavin & Zirkel, 2008; Holler & Zirkel, 2008; Lupini & Zirkel, 2003;

Mawhinney, 2003; Cambron, McCarthy, & Thomas, 2004; Papalwis, 2004; Stefkovich, 2006; Zirkel, 1997;

Zirkel & Clark, 2008; Zirkel & D’Angelo, 2002; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008).

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 5.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 5 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must have

knowledge of how to act with integrity and fairness, and how to engage in ethical practice. Ethical practice

refers to the concept that the implementation of leadership actions must not only conform to adherence to

the laws of the state and regulations concerning ﬁdelity to the spirit of such laws, but also must rest on moral

principles of justice and fairness. Ethical practice rests on the moral principles of building goodness and

community grounded in a collective commitment to the pursuit of truth and truthfulness in operations and

personal interactions with others. In order to engage in ethical practice candidates must have knowledge

of federal, state, and local legal/policy guidance to create operational deﬁnitions of accountability, equity,

and social justice (Chouhoud & Zirkel, 2008; Gavin & Zirkel, 2008; Holler & Zirkel, 2008; Lupini & Zirkel, 2003;

McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Rorrer et al., 2008; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Theoharis, 2001; Zirkel, 1997; Zirkel

& Clark, 2008; Zirkel & D’Angelo, 2002; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008). Candidates understand that fundamentally

social justice means fairness and it represents a perspective in regard to how “fundamental rights and duties

are assigned and on the economic opportunities and social conditions,” which are established “in various

sectors of society,” including but not limited to schools (Rawls, 1971, p. 7).

Candidates must also have knowledge of (a) how to effectively implement policy (Bulkley et al., 2010; Bush,

2008; Center for Educational Leadership, 2007; Honig et al., 2010; Waters, & Marzano, 2006; Spillane, 2004);

(b) how to formulate sound solutions to educational dilemmas across a range of content areas in educational

leadership (Gross & Shapiro, 2004; Langlois, 2004; Smith & Blase, 1991); and, (c) the relationship between

social justice, district culture, and student achievement (Koschoreck, 2001; Lopez, 2003; Scheurich & Skrla,

2003; Stringﬁeld, Datnow, Ross, & Snively, 1998; Theoharis, 2001; Tucker & Herman, 2002).

The importance of the knowledge presented in evidence supporting Standard 5 was recognized in

research on practices that promote social justice identiﬁed as important supports for the 2008 ISLLC

Policy Standards. Support for the importance of this knowledge was informed by scholarship on

practices of inclusive leadership (Ryan, 2006) and leadership for diversity (Tillman, 2004). Candidates’

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

knowledge of diversity is based on (a) the recognition that schools in a democracy serve a broad range

of goals and purposes and that these are sometimes at cross-purposes; (b) the recognition that the

children coming to school do not all have the same family, ethnic, racial, or religious upbringing or

perceptions; and, (c) the valuing of cultural, ethnic, and racial difference as opposed to insisting that the

values of some are promoted while differences in others are negated, undervalued, or devalued. While

a celebration of difference is often recognized in schools, the concept of diversity is more complicated

and complex than mere recognition. It also means confronting the privileges some children have

compared to others who are different, and working to create understanding and ways to confront the

inequities involved (Lopez, 2006, pp. 297-300).

Observations by education experts afﬁrm the importance of knowledge of reﬂective practices for

education leaders if they are to model principles of self-awareness and ethical behavior (Sparks, 2005).

Reﬂective practice is the means by which practitioners gain a greater sense of self-awareness and

perception regarding their beliefs, values, motivations, and actions in relationship to desired goals

or administrative decisions that subsequently deﬁne their performance and serve as the focus for

improvement over time.

Theoretical and practice-focused commentaries noted the need for candidates for district leadership

to have knowledge of the moral and legal consequences of decision making (Chouhoud & Zirkel, 2008;

Gavin & Zirkel, 2008; Holler & Zirkel, 2008; Lupini & Zirkel, 2003; Papalwis, 2004; Mawhinney, 2005;

Zirkel, 1997; Zirkel & Clark, 2008; Zirkel & D’Angelo, 2002; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008).

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

STANDARD 6

The review and analysis of research for ISLLC/ELCC: Standard 6 was conducted by Hanne Mawhinney at

the University of Maryland, working on behalf of UCEA. The following excerpt regarding the research

base supporting the practice of building and district level leaders is taken from Mawhinney (2012a;

2012b). For a more detailed analysis and a full reference list, see Mawhinney’s full contribution in Young

and Mawhinney (2012).

A. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC Building-Level Standard 6.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 6 conﬁrms that a building-level education leader must

have knowledge of how to respond to and inﬂuence the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural

context within a school and district. This includes knowledge of policies, laws, and regulations

enacted by state, local, and federal authorities (Chouhoud & Zirkel, 2008; Cooper, Fusarelli, &

Randall, 2004; Cunningham & Corderio, 2009; Fowler, 2000; Hanson, 2003; Heck, 2004; Gavin &

Zirkel, 2008; Holler & Zirkel, 2008; Hoy & Miskel, 2004; Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1998; Leithwood,

1999; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2007; Lupini & Zirkel, 2003; Murphy, 1990; Murphy et al., 2007; Murphy,

Martin, & Murth, 1997; Razik & Swanson, 2001; Zirkel, 1997; Zirkel & Clark, 2008; Zirkel & D’Angelo,

2002; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008); knowledge of how to improve the social opportunities of students,

particularly in contexts where issues of student marginalization demand proactive leadership (Murphy

& Datnow, 2003; Brown, 2004; Frattura & Capper, 2007; Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Hodgins,

2007; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; McKenzie et al., 2008; Theoharis, 2007); and,

knowledge of how culturally responsive educational leadership can positively inﬂuence academic

achievement and student engagement (Banks & McGee-Banks, 2004; Johnson, 2003, 2006; Juettner,

2003; Klingner et al., 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Riehl, 2000; Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly,

2004). The widespread recognition in the practice and policy community that education leaders

must be prepared to understand, respond to, and inﬂuence the political, social, economic, legal, and

cultural context of education provided an important impetus for the formation of this domain of the

ISLLC standards (see for example, Hoyle’s (2007) description of leadership practices in visioning).

An important focus on mindful practices inﬂuenced the formation of the ISLLC 2008 standards.

The focus is reﬂected in craft and practice scholarship on knowledge of “habits of the mind” that

are “characteristics of what intelligent people do when they are confronted with problems, the

resolutions to which are not immediately apparent” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

Standard 6 was informed by scholarship that called attention to the need for education leaders at

both district and school levels to know about and respond to the social, political, and economic

contexts of schooling (see Murphy, 2005). It was also informed by evidence from empirical and

analytic scholarship and accounts of best practice. The analysis of these sources led to the

identiﬁcation of three important domains of knowledge and associated skills of leadership that must

be developed by school and district leaders if they are to effectively address the socio-economic

and political challenges of leading 21st century schools: a) skills in advocacy for children, families, and

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

caregivers to improve social opportunities; b) skills in inﬂuencing local, district, state, and national

decisions affecting student learning; and, c) skills in the assessment, analysis, and anticipation of

emerging trends and initiatives in order to adapt leadership strategies. All three skill domains reﬂect

a new focus on the importance of proactive leadership of schools and districts. This proactive turn in

both school and district leadership is informed by empirical research, and craft knowledge conﬁrming

the importance of proactive leadership skills, commitment to exercising inﬂuence, and engaging in

advocacy in furthering educational change and reform.

B. Research Support for ISLLC/ELCC District Standard 6.0

Introduction

Evidence presented in support of Standard 6 conﬁrms that a district-level education leader must have

knowledge of how to respond to and inﬂuence the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context

within a district. This includes knowledge of (a) policies, laws, and regulations enacted by state, local,

and federal authorities that affect school districts (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004; Fowler, 2000;

Kowalski, 2006; Mawhinney, 2008; Resnick & Glennan, 2003; Rorrer et al., 2008; Sipple & Killeen, 2004;

Stringﬁeld et al., 1998); (b) key concepts in school law and current legal issues that could impact the

district (Chouhoud & Zirkel, 2008; Cooper et al., 2004; Cunningham & Corderio, 2009; Gavin & Zirkel,

2008; Holler & Zirkel, 2008; Lupini & Zirkel, 2003; Seyfarth, 2008; Zirkel, 1997; Zirkel & Clark, 2008;

Zirkel & D’Angelo, 2002; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008); (c) teachers’ and students’ rights (Cambron-McCable,

McCarthy, & Thomas, 2004; Stefkovich, 2006). It also includes knowledge of how to apply policies

consistently and fairly across districts. Candidates must gain knowledge of the fair and consistent

application of policies focused on (a) accountability (Sipple & Killeen, 2004; Firestone, 2009; Rorrer

et al., 2008; (b) budgeting (Bird, Wang, & Murray, 2009; Johnson & Ingle, 2009; Rodosky & Munoz,

2009; Slosson, 2000); (c) special education (Russo & Osborne, 2008c); and, (d) legal issues (Cambron,

McCarthy, & Thomas, 2004). Candidates must also have knowledge of how to respond to the changing

cultural context of the district (Bolman & Deal, 2002; Lytle, 2009; Falmer, 2009; Fullan, 2005; Glass et al.,

2000; Marsh, 2002; Rorrer et al., 2008; Searby & Williams, 2007; Mawhinney, 2010).

The widespread recognition in the practice and policy community that district level education leaders

must be prepared to understand, respond to, and inﬂuence the political, social, economic, legal and

cultural context of education provided an important impetus for the formation of this domain of the

ISLLC standards. The ISLLC standards were also informed by craft and practice scholarship on the

importance of knowledge of “habits of the mind” that are “characteristics of what intelligent people

do when they are confronted with problems, the resolutions to which are not immediately apparent”

(Costa & Kallick, 2008).

A list of research citations can be found in Appendix B, Citation of Research and Reference List.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section VII

Mapping of the Leadership Standards and a Review of Previous

Mapping Work

The number of content and performance areas for which standards have been developed has increased

signiﬁcantly over the last two decades. A careful examination and comparison of those standards with

signiﬁcant implications for the practice of educational leaders is essential, both to understand the

implications for leadership practice as well as to carefully consider the role of standards in educator

evaluation and development. The standards mapping work in this report is intended to facilitate an “at

a glance” comparison of content, a deeper analysis of the continuities and gaps among the standards,

and an analysis of the implications of those ﬁndings for educational leadership.

CCSSO’s SCEE developed ISLLC 2008 alignment maps for the recently released teacher and leader

standards. The following alignment maps were completed in order to determine whether or not the

ISLLC 2008 standards continue to be “vibrant in the ever-changing education policy arena, address

changes in the ﬁeld, and respond to input from practitioners and policy leaders” (CCSSO, 2008a, p.

5) as they were originally designed to do. At the time the ISLLC standards were developed, it was the

desire of the NPBEA to continue to reﬁne the process of policy standard revision so that the standards

reﬂect changes in the knowledge base. NPBEA intended ISLLC 2008 to “serve as a catalyst for research

efforts to study the implementation and effects of these policy standards and the program and practice

expectations aligned with or resulting from the policy standards” (CCSSO, 2008a, p. 8).

The ISLLC 2008 alignment maps and information supporting them can be found in the following

appendices of this report:

Appendix A Research Supporting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Source: Young & Mawhinney, 2012)

Appendix B InTASC 2011/ Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders/ISLLC

2008 Standards Crosswalk

Appendix C Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the Educational Leadership

Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008

Appendix D 2011 InTASC Standards/Teacher Leader Model Standards

Appendix E A Crosswalk of Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math,

the ISLLC 2008 Standards, and Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education

Leaders

Appendix F A Comparison of the NAESP and NASSP Framework for Rethinking Principal

Evaluation to A Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key Evaluation Elements and

Considerations

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Appendix G Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline District Leader

Standards

Appendix H National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals and ISLLC 2008

Appendix I A Comparison of New Leaders Urban Excellence Framework and ISLLC 2008

Appendix J May 2012 SCEE State Progress Survey – Compilation of Responses to Questions

Pertaining to Leader Effectiveness

Appendix K Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards

Appendix L Findings from the Council of the Great City Schools Survey on Principal Evaluation

Few of the various teacher and leadership standards are formatted the same way, creating obvious

challenges for the mapping exercise. For instance ISLLC 2008 and the Teacher Leader Model Standards

share a common format where each standard begins with a descriptive paragraph, which addresses

in more general terms the domains of knowledge and requisite dispositions needed by leaders.

InTASC , on the other hand, lists “performances,” “essential knowledge,“ and “critical dispositions,”

and the Performance Expectations and Indicators for School Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b) uses a structure

that consists of six broadly stated expectations that are then subdivided into three major conceptual

categories called elements that are then further subdivided into indicators that describe actions

expected of current and future leaders. The indicators are comparable to the “performances”

delineated in InTASC. Despite the variation in format among the standards, the mapping documents

included in this report reveal whether or not the ISLLC 2008 standards are reﬂected in the comparison

standards and/or frameworks.

Because the “1996 ISLLC Standards for School Leaders have been so widely used as a model for state

education leadership policies,” the ISLLC 2008 standards were developed as policy standards (CCSSO,

2008a). Before summarizing some of the ﬁndings from the alignment mapping, it is important to note

how states have actually been using Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (CCSSO,

2008a). In a May 2012 SCEE State Progress Survey, 24 of the then 26 SCEE states responded to

questions pertaining to leader effectiveness issues. Survey participants included Arkansas, Delaware,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington,

West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Several survey questions asked states to describe their use of the ISLLC 2008 standards. Out of 24

states, 16 or 66 percent reported that they adopted the ISLLC 2008 standards while 8 states or 33

percent reported that they had not. However, of those 8 states, 6 did create their own leader standards

that are based on or inﬂuenced by the ISLLC standards. This brings the total number of SCEE state

respondents that have adopted or adapted the ISLLC 2008 standards to 22 states or 92 percent. Only 2

states or 8 percent are using another set of standards for leaders different from ISLLC. These states are

North Carolina, which uses the North Carolina Standards for School Executives, and Hawaii, which uses

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

the Hawaii Department of Education Standards for Leaders. In addition, 11 states or 46 percent of SCEE

states have guidelines that require the use of the ISLLC standards as the basis for leader evaluation

instruments, while 13 states or 54 percent do not.

When reviewing the alignment maps for ISLLC 2008/Performance Expectations and Indicators for

Education Leaders/2011 InTASC Standards, ISLLC 2008/Teacher Leader Model Standards, and 2011

InTASC/Teacher Leader Model Standards, it is clear that there is a great amount of alignment between

and among the various sets of standards. All of the standards reﬂect an educational context that

focuses on such concepts as the centrality of student learning, moving all students to high levels

of academic performance, addressing equity gaps in student learning, realizing a collaborative

professional culture, upgrading the quality of the profession, informing performance-based systems of

assessment and evaluation, and breaking down the barriers to access, opportunity, and empowerment

for all members of the school community.

What makes the standards strikingly different is the amount of speciﬁcity that is provided pertaining

to the heightened expectations within the education context. While some standards refer to “rigorous

curriculum and standards-based instructional programs” other standards refer to the “new Common

Core State Standards.”

An examination of the 2 011 InTASC Teacher Standards reveals the following implications for developing

more current descriptions of ISLLC 2008:

•Reﬂect the most current research on leadership effectiveness.

•Provide a greater emphasis on capacity building to ensure teacher effectiveness.

•Make content accessible to all students especially English language learners.

•Build learner self-direction and ownership of learning.

•Stimulate inquiry, learner reﬂection, and learner self-assessment.

•Nurture innovation, creative thinking, and challenge present assumptions and approaches.

•Develop global awareness and diverse social and cultural perspectives.

•Provide a greater emphasis on developing a leadership team and implementing the notion of

reciprocity.

•Enact systems change.

•Be the lead “learner” for the organization and model the development of a professional growth plan.

•Model and develop excellent interpersonal communication skills in staff and students.

Communicate verbally and non-verbally in ways that demonstrate respect for and

responsiveness to different cultural backgrounds and perspectives. Skillfully communicate

feedback to improve practice.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

•Develop and assess content knowledge central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the

discipline (academic language of the discipline).

•Use real world problems and cross-disciplinary integration as the vehicles for learning.

•Provide a greater emphasis on building learning cultures in the schools and districts.

•Emphasize the importance of developing responsive systems of professional development.

An examination of the Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math15/ISLLC

2008 Standards/Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education Leaders crosswalk reveals that

the CCSSO Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education Leaders (2008b) have a much better

alignment with implementing the Common Core Principal Behaviors. The Performance Expectations &

Indicators for Education Leaders operationalize the ISLLC standards by presenting them as they might

be observed in practice (i.e., describe what leaders do to carry out the leadership concepts and ideals

in each standard) – in different positions and at different points of a career. However, the alignment

and continuity with the ISLLC standards helps with phasing in new leadership system components and

preparing for policy transitions over time.

When reviewing the comparison of NAESP and NASSP’s Leader Evaluation Framework and the

Framework for Leader Evaluation developed by Margaret Terry Orr, you will ﬁnd that the NAESP/NASSP

Leader Evaluation Framework responds to all of the elements that Orr emphasizes as essential to an

evaluation system. These frameworks provide new vocabulary that describes today’s educational context.

Taking a look across the Principal Pipeline Districts’ Leadership Standards, you will ﬁnd six different

descriptions of a school leader’s roles and responsibilities, yet each district’s standards map signiﬁcantly

to the domains and content of ISLLC 2008. The Denver Public Schools (DPS) Framework for Effective

School Leadership Evidence Guide, as shared in a previous section, contains all of the essential domains

of the ISLLC standards while restructuring how they are emphasized. Notably, the DPS framework is

very similar to the InTASC Learning Progressions in that it provides a rubric of performance.

The Prince George’s County leadership standards detail the components of Innovation, Creativity, and

Continuous Improvement; Leading Change; Celebrating School Culture; Adult Learning; Recruitment

and Induction; and, Evaluation in addition to ISLLC.

The New York City School Leadership Competencies, which includes a checklist and a 5-point scale rubric,

adds welcomes and acts on performance feedback, and develops school culture and practices that rely

on data to inform adult learning, professional development, and decision making to ISLLC 2008.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School’s Leadership Framework adds the functions of Leading Change;

Innovation; Coaching; Establishing a Culture of High Performance; and, Succession Planning. They

also include the following personal traits: courage; belief in every child; humility; self-awareness; grit/

perseverance; judgment; ethical; and, lifelong learning.

15 This is an adaption of Engage NY’s work “Leadership in the Common Core – A Call for Transformational

Leadership,” which can be retrieved from www.engageNY.org.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Hillsborough County has a very streamlined principal standards and competency model. They’ve

added the following language to ISLLC 2008: Instructional leadership; Human Capital Management;

Organizational and Operational Leadership.

Finally, Gwinnett County adds Teacher/Staff Evaluation and Professionalism standards. Gwinnett

has done an extensive analysis of nine principal performance tools in comparison to the Qualities

of Effective Principals (Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). They’ve added the following language to

ISLLC 2008: Human Resource Administration; Teacher Evaluation; and, The Principal’s Role in Student

Achievement. Gwinnett recommends the use of Stronge’s principal quality standards. Stronge’s book

provides understanding around leadership theory and qualities of effective principals, but it is not

intended to evaluate how well a principal performs on components aligned to the ISLLC standards.

Another concept The Wallace Foundation’s pipeline districts have added to their standards that is not

reﬂected in ISLLC 2008 is Professional Learning Communities.

When comparing the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals (NBPTS, 2010) and ISLLC

2008 you will ﬁnd strong alignment between the two documents, however, the National Board adds

leading change; emphasizes sense of urgency; adult learning; and, a cohesive culture of learning.

A comparison of the New Leaders’ Urban Excellence Framework and ISLLC 2008 reveals strong

alignment with ISLLC 2008; however, the New Leaders framework places greater emphasis on School

Culture and Teacher Effectiveness than ISLLC 2008. In addition, the New Leaders’ framework includes

a vision of principal effectiveness based on increasing teacher effectiveness and improving student-

level outcomes, which reﬂects the growing emphasis on educator effectiveness in educational

policy. The New Leaders’ framework emphasizes that the ISLLC standards are context-independent.

Speciﬁcally, research and experience have shown that effective leadership actions in schools in need of

transformation are often substantially different than effective leadership actions in other schools.

In addition to the above mapping work, a crosswalk of ISLLC 2008 to the most recent ELCC standards

was conducted to determine the alignment of the policy standards with those used to guide the

preparation of an educational leader. This crosswalk can be found in Appendix K. Like the New Leaders’

framework, there is strong alignment between the two sets of standards.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section VIII

Questions for Consideration

In thinking about the future of education leadership, it is wise to ask a number of questions including

the following:

1. What is the new vision for leadership effectiveness?

2. How do we deﬁne the roles of principal, principal supervisor, and teacher leader?

3. How do you align leadership standards with each component of the

leadership pipeline (i.e., recruitment, selection, preparation, hiring, induction,

professional learning, evaluation, reward, promotion, and compensation)?

What is the deﬁnition of alignment? How do the standards serve as a driver

of all pipeline components?

4. What are the purposes of policy standards?

5. How much speciﬁcity of criteria should be contained in policy standards?

6. How do we need to be thinking about and planning for the different uses of

the standards?

7. Should the same central concepts and ideals of leadership in the ISLLC 2008

standards continue to be represented?

8. What does research on effective leadership practice reveal? And how should

this new knowledge be reﬂected in leadership standards?

9. The mapping exercises indicate areas of continuity across standards and reveal

gaps in the ISLLC 2008 standards. How should this information be used to

inform our conversation?

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

10. How are new leadership job roles supported by our current leadership standards?

11. What is the relationship between leadership standards and school context?

12. Are there certain standards that we want to place more emphasis on in light of

today’s educational context?

13. Is deep investigation of the implication of each of the Common Core State

Standards and the InTASC standards warranted?

14. Is a shared, common format for student, teacher, and leader standards desirable?

15. Are we working on broad policy and research related tasks or are we working

on observable actions for guiding programs, assessments, and services that

improve on-the-job performance?

16. As the different sources of data are collected and analyzed, including the SCEE

leadership standards mapping analysis and CGCS’s Principal Evaluation District

Survey, what types of things do we want to be asking of the data?

17. Are there speciﬁc analyses that are desired (i.e., comparison of district evaluation

needs and district concerns about the standards)?

18. Who should be involved in determining what action is warranted after

considering the data and ﬁndings from this report and others?

19. What can we learn from the district leadership standards development processes

highlighted in this report? Can the district processes serve as a model for the

development of common state leadership standards?

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section IX

References

Achilles, C., & Price, W.J. (2001). What is missing in the current debate about educational administration? The

AASA Professor, 24, 8-13.

Adams, J. E., & Copland, M. A. (2005). When learning counts: Rethinking licenses for school leaders. Seattle, WA:

Center on Reinventing Public Education

Casserly, M., Lewis, S., Simon, C., Uzzell, R., & Palacios, M. (2013). Principal evaluations and principal supervisor:

Survey results from the great city schools. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.

CCSSO. (1996). Interstate school leaders licensure consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC:

Author.

CCSSO. (2008a). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved

May 13, 2013, from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_

Standards_2008.pdf.

CCSSO. (2008b). Performance expectations and indicators for education leaders (N.M. Sanders & K.M. Kearney,

Eds.). Washington, DC: Author.

CCSSO. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming educator preparation and entry into the profession.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/Our%20

Responsibility%20Our%20Promise_2012.pdf.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing

world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational

Leadership Institute.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Review of leadership: School leadership

study—Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Denver Public Schools. (2011). Denver public schools framework for effective school leadership evidence guide,

version 2.0: 2011-2012. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved May 9, 2013, from http://www.boarddocs.com/co/

dpsk12/Board.nsf/ﬁles/8RFSJ572C7D9/$ﬁle/1.01%20-%20Framework%20for%20Effective%20School%20

Leadership_JM_v1.pdf.

English, F. (2003). Cookie-cutter leaders for cookie-cutter schools: The teleology of standardization and the de-

legitimization of the university in educational leadership preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools,

2(1 ) , 27- 47.

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform.

Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Hess, F.M. (2003, January). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools. Washington, DC:

Progressive Policy Institute.

Keeler, C.M. (2002). Exploring the validity of standards for school administration preparation. Journal of School

Leade rship, 12 (5), 579-602.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (2005). Toward a second generation of school leadership standards. In P. Hallinger

(Ed.), Global trends in school leadership preparation. Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership inﬂuences learning. New

York City, New York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://www.wallacefoundation.

org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/How-Leadership-Inﬂuences-Student-

Learning.pdf.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Mawhinney, H. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research

base supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 32-37. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Mawhinney, H. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research

base supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 68-73. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

McCarthy, M., & Forsyth, P. (2009). An historical review of research and development activities pertaining to the

preparation of school leaders. In Young, M.D., Crow, G., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. (Eds.), The handbook of

research on the education of school leaders (pp. 86-128). New York: Routledge.

Murphy, J. (1999). The quest for a center: Notes on the state of the profession of educational leadership.

Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176-191.

Murphy, J. (2003). Reculturing educational leadership: The ISLLC standards ten years out. Washington, DC:

National Policy Board for Educational Administration.

Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic

community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 15 4 -191.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual

foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Murphy, J. Yff, J., & Shipman, N.J. (2000). Implementation of the interstate school leaders licensure consortium

standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 31(1), 17-39.

Murphy, J., Young, M.D., Crow, G., & Ogawa, R. (2009). Exploring the broad terrain of leadership preparation

in education. In Young, M.D., Crow, G., Murphy, J., & Ogawa, R. (Eds.), The handbook of research on the

education of school leaders (pp. 1-22). New York: Routledge.

NBPTS. (2010). National board standards for accomplished principals. Washington, DC: National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards.

NPBEA. (2006). Updating educational leadership professional standards in a changing public education

environment. Washington, DC: Council of the Chief State School Ofﬁcers.

Orr, M. T. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard two. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 11-16. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Orr, M.T. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard two. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 48-53. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Pitre, P., & Smith, W. (2004). ISLLC standards and school leadership: Who’s leading this band? Teachers College

Record. Available from www.tcrecord.org.

Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard three. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The

research base supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 17-21. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard three. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The

research base supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 54-58. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Sanders, N.M., & Simpson, J. (2005). State policy framework to develop highly qualiﬁed administrators.

Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Stronge, J.H., Richard, H.B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Taylor, D. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 5-10. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Taylor, D. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 43-47. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

The Wallace Foundation. (2006). Leadership for learning: Making the connections among state, district,

and school policies and practices. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.

wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Documents/

Wallace-Perspective-Leadership-for-Learning.pdf.

The Wallace Foundation. (2007). A bridge to school reform. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Bridge-

to-School-Reform.pdf.

Tucker, P. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. -21. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Tucker, P. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 23-26. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of standards for

administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: McREL.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, R. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us

about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education

and Learning.

Young, M.D. (2008). Newly revised ISLLC standards released-Why is that important? UCEA Review, 50 (1), 6-7.

Young, M.D., & Mawhinney, H. (Eds.). (2012). The research base supporting the ELCC standards. Charlottesville,

VA: UCE A .

Young, M.D. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard ﬁve. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 27-31. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Young, M.D. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard ﬁve. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base

supporting the ELCC standards, pp. 63-67. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA.

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Section X

List of Appendices

Appendix A Research Supporting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Source: Young & Mawhinney, 2012)

Appendix B InTASC 2011/ Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders/ISLLC

2008 Standards Crosswalk

Appendix C Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the Educational Leadership

Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008

Appendix D 2011 InTASC Standards/Teacher Leader Model Standards

Appendix E A Crosswalk of Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math,

the ISLLC 2008 Standards, and Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education

Leaders

Appendix F A Comparison of the NAESP and NASSP Framework for Rethinking Principal Evaluation

to A Framework for Principal Evaluation: Key Evaluation Elements and Considerations

Appendix G Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline District Leader Standards

Appendix H National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals and ISLLC 2008

Appendix I A Comparison of New Leaders Urban Excellence Framework and ISLLC 2008

Appendix J May 2012 SCEE State Progress Survey – Compilation of Responses to Questions

Pertaining to Leader Effectiveness

Appendix K Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards

Appendix L Findings from the Council of the Great City Schools Survey on Principal Evaluation

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Appendix A

Research Supporting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Young & Mawhinney, 2012)

Adler, M. A., & Fisher, C. W. (2001). Early reading programs in high-poverty schools: A case of beating the odds.

The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 616 -19.

Alexander, K. & Alexander, D. M. (2005). American public school law. Belmont, CA: Thomson West.

Alsbury, T. A., & Ivory, G. (2006). Justifying a pragmatic theoretical approach to superintendent preparation,

University Council of Educational Administration. San Antonio, TX.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3),

261-271.

Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., & Sinclair, M. F. (2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for

Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis

Abstract