Pitre, P. & Smith, W. (2004 October 19). ISLLC standards and school leadership: Who’s
leading this band? TC Record. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from:
Criticism of ISLLC Standard as being too centrist, under utilizing other individuals.
Dr. Meister:
The critical flaw of this article is the primary focus on the principal as the sole target of the ISLLC standards. This is an inaccurate, or limited, portrayal of the initiative. The ISLLC Standards for School Leaders specifically states that the target group represents various individuals in the leadership matrix for a state or school district, not exclusively the principal.
The ISLLC Standards recognize that effective leadership depends not on one individual but on the support system of leadership, the core group of individuals and their knowledge, disposition, and performance. Perhaps this article indicates the danger of a team approach to leadership where the success of the group (school district or state) relies upon the skills of the weakest member. As efforts are undertaken to define effective leadership in education, participants in the initiative should consider the standards defined by the ISLCC and determine who will decide the combination or responsible parties for the specific behaviors addressed under the knowledge, dispositions, and performance sections of each standard. This orchestration of responsible parties, adequate support, and maintenance of ongoing communication is potentially a greater challenge than defining effective leadership.
In this particular commentary I have included a counter argument of my words in italics.
Julie
Criticism of Standard 1: Communicating vision
“Why would the principal, who is viewed as a facilitator of the vision in Standard 1, need to communicate the school vision to a staff that was directly involved in its creation?… While a collaborative effort in communicating the school vision to the broader public is a clear sign of stakeholder buy-in, the individual effort of the principal in communicating the school vision to key stakeholders is the first sign of the top-down, bureaucratic, centrist perception of the school leader” (p. 2) On the other hand, the standard can be considered to reinforce the collaborative process by stressing the principal’s role as one of providing continual involvement to maintain focus on the vision that was collaboratively established. Stakeholders in this sense need a leader who is able to support others in their efforts to fulfill individual objectives within the context of the vision statement. This is not top-down management but a recognition of the complex processes within schools and the need to have one individual or small group of leaders consistently focused on educational goals/vision and able to translate that vision into specific actions or behaviors of the stakeholders.
Criticism of Standard 2: Asserts the critical nature of principal training and continued professional development
“Standard 2 curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise of teachers, and the recommendations of learned societies. The implication is that curriculum matters are in the purview of the principal. This may be problematic, given the uncertainty with regards to the expertise of principals and whether or not they are suited to have the final word in matters of curriculum” (p. 2). This criticism is based upon the concept that the principal is all-knowing and an expert in all areas of the curriculum at the school. Clearly, this is problematic for any one individual. Perhaps the answer to this criticism is similar to teaching approaches that incorporate technology in the classroom. Specifically, the vast amount of information available, the interrelated and expanding contexts, and the ever changing needs of the populations we serve mandate leaders who are willing and able to surround themselves with individuals who possess a depth of knowledge and experience in the issues at hand. One leader cannot possibly be an expert in all areas; however, one leader can be an expert in seeking out individuals who can provide input into the process at hand.
The article asserts that standards are top-down instruments that dictate what and how teachers teach therefore limiting the principal’s role. This appears to be a weak assertion. I am certain that the majority of teachers and principals would tell you that the standards provide many specifics in terms of coverage, but the standard do not specify methods. The principal and teachers are owners of the ‘how’ that will affect the performance of their students.
Quotations:
“The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) set of standards for school leaders has received considerable attention as a framework for reconceptualizing leadership in school” (p. 3).
“A careful reading of the ISLLC standards, performances, and outcomes reveals a strong dependency upon the principal’s leadership in a variety of areas within and outside the school setting. The standards do not clearly vest leadership at any other level of the school” (p. 6). This article clearly defines the ISLLC Standards in terms of the principal as the leader. Perhaps this is a common misconception or misallocation of responsibility of those attempting to define school leadership. Effective leadership, in a general sense, relies upon a network of individuals with varied responsibilities working toward a common, worthy goal. As effective leadership is examined for schools, the leadership team should be defined with clear responsibilities or roles. Can we conceptualize leadership in schools by focusing on business or service industry models rather than bureaucratic, government models? In other words, how do businesses with federal or state regulatory concerns address leadership? Are the roadblocks to effective leadership constructed by the nature of the system? (see page 6 for a discussion of associations between business and schools – The examples provided are weak. The authors do not recognize the fact that different needs exist for elementary vs. secondary schools. The example they use is not appropriate.)
The article refers to teachers as being isolated from the leadership process. Although this may or may not be the case in a particular school or district, the ISLLC Standards do not exclude teachers as a part of the process.
Cautionary statement: Any reconceptualization or reallocation of leadership responsibilities must consider the range of existing duties for each participant. In other word, simply piling on more is not the answer.
The article underscores the demanding role of principals:
“Currently, many principals are expected to be actively engaged in a plenitude of professional activities such as:
· School improvement efforts;
· Promoting a culture of high expectations for self, students, and staff;
· Organizing and implementing student and staff development;
· Policy advocacy;
· Oversight of the school plant facility; and
· Management of school budgets” (p. 8-9).
“…the point is that the standards are so important that vesting their successful implementation and execution in one person (or at best a few people) is dubious.If the leader-centrist perspective for these standards is to be maintained then it may be necessary, as an ordinary task, to identify principals and principal candidates with extraordinary talents. Given the emerging and growing trend of a principal shortage throughout the nation, identifying an extraordinary candidate for each and every principalship is unlikely (Hughes, 1999)… the centrist framework for the standards unnecessarily pictures the principal as primarily responsible for a myriad of tasks that could and should be rethought in terms of school leadership rather than from the perspective of the school leader” (p. 9). Consider leadership at a contingent of individuals rather than one. There are many individuals that contribute to an organization’s effectiveness; individuals are empowered to make decisions commensurate with their specialty or area of responsibility.