The empirical and moral foundations of the ISLLC Standards
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2014-0103 |
| Published date | 07 September 2015 |
| Pages | 718-734 |
| Date | 07 September 2015 |
| Author | Joseph Murphy |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
The empirical and moral
foundations of the ISLLC
Standards
Joseph Murphy
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to unpack the foundations for the national standards for
school leaders in the USA. The author examines some of the background of the Standards from 1996 to
2015. The author explores the two foundations on which the ISLLC Standards rest, academic press and
supportive community.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper takes the approach of a review of research.
Findings –The paper lays out the foundations for ISLLC.
Originality/value –The ISLLC Standards have the potential to significantly alter the landscape of
leadership.
Keywords Leadership, School reform
Paper type General review
In this paper, we explore the foundations of the ISLLC Standards. We begin by
uncovering the purpose dimensions of the Standards, what they are designed to influence.
We undertake this initial assignment through a brief historical discussion, by highlighting
core design principles, and with an analysis of the importance of the Standards. In the
balance of the paper, we examine the two intellectual pillars on which the Standards rest,
academic press and productive community.
Historical development
The vision for national standards for school leaders took shape inside the National Policy
Board for Education Administration (NPBEA), and bears the fingerprints of its executive
director in the mid-1990s, Scott Thomson. The NPBEA was formed in response to
recommendations contained in the 1987 report of the UCEA-sponsored National
Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA) (Griffiths et al., 1988;
Thomson, 1999), a hallmark document in the history of school leadership that provided
bridging from the 40-year post-Second World War era to new conceptions about what
educational administration might become (Forsyth, 1999). It was the NPBEA that secured
the funding to develop national standards for school leaders, although in 1994 in an effort
to prevent duplication, the grant application to the Pew Trusts for creation of “common
and higher standards […] was amended to designate CCSSO as assuming primary
responsibility for this work”(Thomson, 1999, p. 107). Over 18 months, the newly formed
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium encompassing 24 states and members
from the associations in the NPBEA crafted the first set of national standards for
school administrators (Forsyth, 1999), what came to be known as the ISLLC Standards for
School Leaders (Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium, 1996).
As we report below, the ISLLC Standards quickly began to influence the profession
of school administration in both direct and indirect ways. Some of this influence can be
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 53 No. 6, 2015
pp. 718-734
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-08-2014-0103
Received 23 August 2014
Revised 13 January 2015
Accepted 22 January 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
718
JEA
53,6
traced to the timing of their development. During the decade from 1985 to 1995, there
was growing acceptance that the field was in need of major overhaul (Griffiths, 1988).
Central here was the belief that the profession required a stronger and more unified
center of gravity, that the profession was more than a conglomerate of varied holding
companies (Campbell et al., 1987; Murphy, 1999a). The national standards also drew
strength from a growing concern with the quality of leadership preparation throughout
the nation, angst carefully delineated in a wide range of critical reviews of the
profession beginning with Bridges (1977) and Erickson (1977, 1979) and running
through the years of the NCEEA and its aftermath (Murphy, 1990, 1992; National
Commission for the Principalship, 1990, 1993). Interest was also galvanized by the fact
that the Standards captured a vision of school administration that was beginning to
take hold across the four spheres of the profession –research, development, policy,
and practice. Using a macro-level prism and employing the language of Boyan (1963),
the profession was moving from its long history of administration as a sub-field
of management to administration as a sub-field of education. Using a more fine-grained
lens, a shift from leading organizations to leading learning was unfolding (Hallinger
and Murphy, 1985). The long period of neglect of the technical core of education (Bates,
1984; Callahan, 1962; Evans, 1991; Greenfield, 1988; Murphy, 1992) was coming
to a close and the newly crafted Standards captured changing formulations of the
profession (Murphy, 2005).
As expected, the release of the Standards in 1996 and their expanding importance in
the profession catalyzed a good deal of scholarly critique. Almost all of the concerns fell
into two categories. Some analysts addressed shortcomings in the content of the
Standards. These, in turn, focussed on both omission of content (e.g. insufficient
attention to matters of social justice) (see, e.g. Davis et al., 2013; Hess, 2003; Leithwood
and Steinbach, 2005; Young and Liable, 2000) and the incorporation of questionable
content (e.g. the inclusion of non-empirical material) (see, e.g. English, 2000; Hess, 2003;
Leithwood and Steinbach, 2005). Other scholars were concerned that the Standards
could be (would be) misused. Professor Anderson’s (2002) review of the use of the ETS
examination for licensure of students in preparation programs, the School Leaders
Licensure Examination, is a good example of critique falling into this second category
of analysis.
For an incongruous set of reasons that can best be described as political in nature,
the struggle to democratize the Standards and extend ownership on the one handand to
solidify controlon the other, the 1996 Standards wererevised in 2008. The initial process
of developing theISLLC Standards was transparent but relatively low-keyedand largely
containedwithin the development team of stateand association participants.By 2008, the
climate surrounding the Standards had changed considerably. The Standards had
become a very important part of the profession, to a much greater extent than even the
developers imagined. Consequently, nearly everyone who had a stake in the profession
desired a stronger and more direct voice in recrafting the Standards. At the same time,
the official guardians of the Standards, especially CCSSO, demanded a more visible role
than they had in 1996. In the process, the 2008 Standards became both more widely
owned and more tightly controlled than they had previously.
Onthesubstantivesideoftherevisionledger,therewaslittleappetiteformajor
changes. The dominant stance was that the Standards were just beginning to become
infused throughout the profession (e.g. in preparation programs, in principal
evaluation systems). Any recasting that significantly altered the Standards was
viewed as problematic, carrying with it the probability that progress since 1996
719
ISLLC
Standards
To continue reading
Request your trial