ISLLC Standards and School Leadership: Whos Leading

This Band?
Paul Pitre
Auburn University
Wade Smith
Louisiana State University
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortiums (ISLLC) standards serve to define
expected outcomes and activities for effective school leaders. As such, the standards
provide a comprehensive overview of leadership in our nations schools and serve as
important referents for measuring school improvement and effectiveness. This article
examines the centrist perspective of the standards, where the principal is viewed as the
leader, posits reasons why the centrist view of the principalship is offered, and argues
that this centrist notion of the leader is likely to encourage the under utilization of the
collective human capitol available to a school and ultimately stifle school improvement
efforts.

Executive Summary
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortiums (ISLLC) standards were
intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue on K-12 leadership and a set of
behavioral outcomes that school leaders can use to bring about substantive and
sustained school improvement. But not only have the standards sparked
dialogue, they have also fueled some debate. Claims that the standards lack an
epistemological base have been answered with the argument that the students
were only meant to represent a framework for leadership in schools based on
research and practice.
The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate. They were
also meant to enhance standards for the practice of school leadership. Each standard is
defined by subsets of indicators for expected performance. Collectively, the standards
are intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes for effective
school leaders.
ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN ISLLC STANDARDS
The ISLLC standards have a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an
educational leader. Though the need for collaborative processes to create desired
educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of
ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider

Standard 1, where the school administrator facilitates the development, articulation,

implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by
the school community. The language in this standard suggests that the administrator
facilitates collaborative efforts in developing a vision for the school and the school
community. However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 contradicts the
focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that
the vision and mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents,
students, and community members.
Question: 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?
! In most instances, the principal would not have to be concerned with
communicating the vision for a school unless the decision-making process for creating
the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a small group of
individuals that worked in a somewhat disconnected fashion from the faculty and the
community.
Reasoning: ! A truly collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in the process of
communicating the school vision as well. 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.
Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset
embedded in the ISLLC standards. For example, under 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. This
matter is of extreme importance in the current high-stakes testing environment that
strikes a delicate balance between teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing
students for standardized tests on the other. It is also of particular importance in complex
learning environments like high schools, which offer an array of courses. However, the
rationale is logical if each principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision maker for
all aspects of their school.
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by
no means out of favor in today's schools. For example, the use of prescribed curricula is
becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment and often
reduces the role of the teacher. Highly prescribed curricula tend to reduce the role of

teachers to the equivalent of assembly line worker in industry. They are expected to
teach what and how they are told.
The examples of the principal having decision authority over the curriculum and the
teachers role in the prescribed curriculum provide pause for rethinking the centrist
perspective of ISLLC Standards. Further, envisioning a principal as the leader for the
myriad of ISLLC performance sub-standards provides even more reason to question the
centrist view of ISLLC. Under ISLLC, the principal is charged with maintaining high
visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the larger
community. Another important job of the principal is the constant maintenance and
facilitation of a safe, non-threatening learning environment at the school campus. Each
of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation and every one
of them is labor intensive.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the positioning of the principal, as leader appears to be based more upon
pre-established beliefs and norms than the individual organizational needs of schools.
Furthermore, framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide the means for
bringing to bear the talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems.
This in itself is enough to give pause to the idea of nesting leadership in principals by
virtue of position and authority. However, other concerns also come into play when
principals are charged with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC
framework. The authors of this essay are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are
unimportant. To the contrary, 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.

Main Article
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortiums (ISLLC) set of
standards for school leaders has received considerable attention as a framework
for reconceptualizing leadership in schools. The ISLLC organization was
created in August of 1994 through the collaborative efforts of 24 member
states, several foundations, and numerous professional education
organizations. The purpose of ISLLC is to redefine the roles of school
administrators through the introduction of a set of common standards, which
delineate the expected behavioral outcomes produced by K-12 educational
leaders. Nearly thirty-five states have either adopted or adapted the ISLLC
standards and over 25,000 copies of the ISLLC standards have been
disseminated (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002).

The ISLLC standards were intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue about
K-12 leadership and a set of behavioral outcomes that school leaders can use to
bring about substantive and sustained school improvement. But not only have
the standards sparked dialogue, they have also fueled some debate. English
(2000) argued that the ISLLC standards have no epistemological base and thus
were not steeped in truth. In response to Englishs claim, Murphy (2000)
retorted that the standards were not meant to represent truth, they were only
meant to represent a framework for leadership in schools based on research and
practice.
The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate.
They were also meant to raise the bar for the practice of school leadership
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). Each standard is defined by
subsets of indicators for expected performance. Collectively, the standards are
intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes for
effective school leaders. There are six core standards within the ISLLC
standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). The standards
articulate that school principals are responsible for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a

vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community;
Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining school culture and instructional programs
conducive to student learning and staff professional growth;
Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe,
efficient, and effective learning environment;
Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources;
Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and
Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.

According to ISLLC's web-site, these standards are reflective of school administrators

who:
...often espouse different patterns of beliefs and act differently from the norm in
the profession. Effective school leaders are strong educators, anchoring their
work on central issues of learning and teaching and school improvement. They
are moral agents and social advocates for the children and the communities they
serve. Finally, they make strong connections with other people, valuing and
caring for others as individuals and as members of the educational community
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002).
The type of leader described by ISLLC is a visionary. A visionary is defined as an
individual capable of conceptualizing a clear course of action for an organization (Senge,
1994). This leader is then able to gain buy-in from members of the organization and
begin to move those members in a positive direction that will eventually be of direct

benefit to the organization and its surrounding community. It is clear that a primary goal
of the ISLLC is to identify standards and dispensations that, when implemented by a
visionary leader, initiate a transformational process in schools whereby the core beliefs,
norms, and values of the organization are analyzed and restructured in an effort to
produce more effective schools. This is certainly an appropriate goal and an expected
outcome of the ISLLC standards. What might be questionable are some of the theoretical
underpinnings of ISLLC standards. More specifically, the ISLLC standards are focused
on traits and behaviors of the leader and are not generally sensitive to the need for
developing leadership throughout the school. If the outcomes delineated by ISLLC are
important (and they assuredly are), then it is also important to analyze the assumptions
related to how these outcomes might be realized to determine if the assumptions are
correct.
ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN THE ISLLC STANDARDS
The ISLLC standards place a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an
educational leader. Though the need for collaborative processes to create desired
educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of
ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider
Standard 1, where the school administrator facilitates the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by
the school community. The language in this standard suggests that the administrator
facilitates collaborative efforts in developing a vision for the school and the school
community. However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 contradicts the
focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that
the vision and mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents,
students, and community members (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002.
Standard 1, Performance Indicator 1). 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
directly involved in its creation? In most instances, the principal would not have to be
concerned with communicating the vision for a school unless the decision-making
process for creating the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a
small group of individuals that worked in a somewhat disconnected fashion from the
faculty and the community. A truly collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in
the process of communicating the school vision. While a collaborative effort in
communicating the school vision to the broader public is a clear sign of stakeholder buyin, 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.
Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset
embedded in the ISLLC standards. For example, under Standard 2 (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2002), curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise
of teachers, and the recommendations of learned societies. The implication is that
curriculum matters are 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. This matter is of extreme importance in
the current high-stakes testing environment that strikes a delicate balance between
teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing students for standardized tests on the
other. It is also of particular importance in complex learning environments like high
schools, which offer an array of courses. However, the rationale is logical if each
principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision maker for all aspects of their school.
A careful reading of the ISLLC standards, performances, and outcomes reveals a strong
dependency upon the principals 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. This traditional, bureaucratic orientation suggests that leadership within schools
should be viewed primarily as centrist, top-down, and essentially hierarchical in its
function (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979). From this perspective, final decision
power is vested in an individual or a small group of individuals by virtue of their position
in an organization's hierarchical structure. Nearly twenty years ago Immegart (1988)
questioned the viability of this model for leadership and called for development of
leadership that moved beyond focusing upon the activities or attributes of the leader.
Even so, it seems as though the leader centrist view of the principals role is still the norm
for schools.
RATIONALE FOR VESTING POWER IN THE PRINCIPAL
At least three possibilities come to mind to justify the centrist leadership assumptions
nested in the ISLLC standards. First, separation of schools into leaders and followers
may be based upon the belief that work and work standards are best determined by those
individuals considered to have higher rank and more theoretical knowledge (Chubb and
Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979). Second, removing teachers from the ultimate
responsibility of curriculum decisions may be a means for freeing them from burdensome
administrative tasks while still allowing for their input. Finally, a third possibility might
be that sometimes individuals are placed in leadership roles within an organization based
on their status within the hierarchical structure even though other organizational members
may possess similar levels of skill. Each of these perspectives is discussed below from
the context of the principal having final purview over matters of instruction as delineated
by the ISSLC standards.
Possibility 1: Leaders and Followers
Using an example from industry and the bureaucratic model suggested by the ISLLC
standards, line managers (e.g., structural engineers), by virtue of their status in a
hierarchy, would make most important decisions, which would then be implemented by
craftsmen (e.g., ironworkers). In this example it is true that the engineer possesses
knowledge that an ordinary field worker would not be expected to possess. Therefore, it
is reasonable for the engineer to assume the role of leader in a manner consistent with the
underpinnings of the ISLLC document. However, unlike the engineer in the previous
example, it is suspect to assume that school administrators possess a unique body of
knowledge in matters of curriculum. In fact, the opposite may be true with teachers

having a fuller understanding of key issues and decisions involving curriculum that
impact the quality of teaching and learning in a school.
Possibility 2: Free Teachers from Unnecessary Tasks
There is certainly merit in trying to insulate teachers from activities unrelated to
instruction. However, the belief that principals should have the final decision on matters
of curriculum at a school does not seem to be congruent with this aim. Teachers are the
only school-based personnel most likely to seeor experienceconsequences of
leadership decisions regarding curriculum, whether on a day-to-day or a general
programmatic basis. Excluding teachers from a framework for leadership might be seen
as an expedient way to free teachers up from organizational encumbrances and allow
them to focus on teaching and learning. Yet, as noted earlier, the very practice of
teaching and learning is the area where teachers would be expected to have considerable
expertise. The notion of vesting final authority in one person over what has to that point
been a collaborative process is now losing favor in other work environments such as
business and industry (House, 1998).
Possibility 3: Only One Leader Is Needed
This possibility can be seen in other work settings. For example, a conductor assumes the
role of the leader of an orchestra because the nature of the work only requires one leader
even though many of the musicians may have similar (or perhaps higher) abilities to read
music, understand nuances of the music, and coordinate the efforts of individual orchestra
members. Extending the orchestral analogy to school leadership has been attempted
(Hurley, 1999; Iwanicki, 1999). However, it does not appear to be a good fit for
conceptualizing leadership for schools because principals rarely conduct their orchestra
(i.e., the faculty) since schools have very few group performances. With the possible
exception of the occasional faculty meeting, faculty members are used to solo
performances in the classroom and, generally, get very little direction from the
principalbeyond the occasional teacher evaluation. The conductor model of leadership
may be a proper way to lead a classical orchestra, but it is a questionable way to organize
and lead a school.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSICAL LEADERSHIP IN GENERAL
Although the classical orchestral model of leadership may not be a good conceptual fit
for school leadership, it does contain many of the assumed norms found in schools
today. In orchestras, information flows from the top-down (from the composer to the
conductor to the musicians). The genesis of the music's structure or master plan is the
composer. Once the music is composed, it is the conductor's job to ensure that the
orchestra provides a true and faithful rendition of the composer's work. The score acts
like a blueprint, giving instructions to the conductor as to what the composer has created.
Each orchestral member is given pieces of the score and is responsible for executing their
specific part of the composition. Their efforts are monitored and refined by the
conductor, the leader who is entrusted with the master blueprint for the musical

performance. Precision and fidelity are primary to the orchestra's mission. A classical
orchestral performance is one where the essence of the composer's master plan is
captured, decoded, and executed precisely by the musicians while the conductor oversees
and attunes the effort.
The classical model for leadership has much in common with the way policy is created
and implemented in schools. Boards of education or legislative bodies create policy
(scores) that are passed down to school-based administrators. The administrators act as
conductors and are charged with the oversight of the faithful replication of the policy.
Extending the analogy, teachers fulfill the role of musicians by taking the policy/score
and working to ensure its faithful replication. Such an organization for leadership in
schools assumes several things. It assumes that outcomes are predictable and that the
master plan for the outcome is best generated from outside the organization (or at least
distinct from those responsible for the plan's implementation). Once policy is set, there is
little opportunity to deviate and if there is any deviation (such as making decisions about
curriculum) then it is only natural that the conductors view (i.e., the principals view)
would supersede those of the orchestra (teachers).
Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by
no means out of favor in today's schools. For example, the use of prescribed curricula is
becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment and often
reduces the teacher's role to being little more than score readers (Smagorinsky, Lakly,
and Star Johnson, 2002). From the orchestra analogy, highly prescribed curricula tend to
reduce teachers to third chair orchestra members who only perform what and how they
are told.
In summary, the positioning of the principal as leader appears to be based more upon preestablished beliefs and norms than the organizational needs of schools. Furthermore,
framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide means for bringing to bear the
talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems. This in itself is
enough to give pause to the idea of nesting leadership in principals by virtue of position
and authority. However, other concerns also come into play when principals are charged
with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC framework.
CAVEATS FOR THE ISLLC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that principals should operate from a centrist
perspective still requires a concession from the proponents: namely, that the demands
placed upon an ISLLC-driven administrator are likely to be difficult for one person to
perform. This point is driven home by even a cursory review of the standards. For
example, the six ISLLC standards contain within them approximately 100 performance
sub-standards, some of which are part of labor-intense, ongoing processes. The single
example of the principal having the final decision over curriculum matters provides pause
for rethinking the centrist perspective of the ISLLC. Envisioning a principal as the leader
for the myriad of sub-standards provides even more reason to question the centrist view
of ISLLC.

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.

All of these activities are quite time-intensive, and in the midst of these activities the
administrator still needs to find time to recognize, study, and apply emerging trends in
instruction and the way schools operate. Furthermore, the principal is charged with
maintaining high visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the
larger community. Finally, another important job of the principal is the constant
maintenance and facilitation of a safe, non-threatening learning environment at the school
campus. Each of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation,
and every one of them is labor intensive. For example, the evolving role of the principal
as policy advocate requires education leaders to promote the success of schools through
active participation in, and knowledge of, policy-making processes (Pitre, Reed,
Ledbetter, 2003). The policy advocate role of the principal is also imbedded in the ISLLC
Standards.
As stated from the outset, we are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are unimportant.
To the contrary, 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). In fact, as the principalship becomes more
demanding and accountability mandates more onerous, there is an increasing likelihood
that the administrator who is adept at psychology, time management, motivation, learning
theory, safety management, school community relations, public speaking, school law, and
finance, etc., and is willing to accept the job's responsibility for its remuneration will
become an even rarer find. If school improvement is contingent upon principals
performing extraordinary tasks as an ordinary occurrence, then the realization of the
goals and objectives of the ISLLC and other school improvement models are at risk.
And, if a school is fortunate to find themselves with the type of person who can
successfully manage all the ISLLC performance standards, stakeholders must wonder
how long the schools level of performance can be maintained when the principal moves
on.
SUMMARY

The ISLLC standards provide a comprehensive analysis and understanding of behavior

associated with effective schools. However, our view is that the standards fail to
adequately utilize the human and social capital available within schools. Additionally,
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.
We believe the first step in rethinking the perspective of the ISLLC standards is the
identification of potential limitations inherent in current thinking. We have attempted to
make an argument that the ISLLC standards are unnecessarily overly reliant upon
principals as the leader of their respective schools. If we have made our case, then it is
also incumbent to begin to rethink how the standards might be revisited from other
theoretical perspectives. This is a subject for further consideration and ongoing
discussion.
REFERENCES
Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T.M (1990). Politics, markets, and Americas schools.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2002, June 10). Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium: Standards For School Leaders. Retrieved October 7, 2002, from
http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=87

English, F.W. (2000) Psssssst. What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required
to be accepted on faith and enforced by authority? [Answer: A religion, AKA the ISLLC
Standards]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2) 159-167
House, E. (1998). Schools for sale: why free market policies wont improve Americas
schools and what will. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hughes, L.W. (Ed.) (1999). Principals as leaders (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Hurley, C. (1999). A response to Bryan Brent. Newsletter of the Teaching in Educational
Administration Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research
Association, 6(1), 4-5.
Iwanicki, E. (1999). ISSLC standards and assessment in the context of school leadership
reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(3), 283-294.
Immegart, G. L. (1988). Leadership and leader behavior. In N. Boyan (ed.). Handbook of
research on educational administration. (pp. 259 277). New York: Longman Inc.
Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Murphy, J. (2000). A response to English. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 3(4) 411-414.

Pitre, P. E., Reed, C., and Ledbetter, C. (2003) Collaborative Policy Research: Preparing
Educational Leaders for Advocacy. Southern Regional Council on Educational
Administration 2003 Yearbook, 55-60
Senge, P. M. (1994) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A. and Star Johnson, T. (2002, April 1) Acquiescence,
accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum.
English Education. 34(3), 187-213
Retrieved October 21, 2004 from:
http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=11382