Standards for Educational Leaders - Council of Chief State School

Transcription

ISLLC Analysis Report
Standards for Educational Leaders:
An Analysis
Mary Canole, CCSSO Consultant on School Leadership
Michelle Young, Researcher, Executive Director of UCEA
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. Beaudoin
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.
Copyright © 2012 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC
All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
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 Supporting 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 ................................. 135
G. Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline District Leader Standards ............................137
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 .......................................................................................... 154
L. Findings from the Council of the Great City Schools Survey on Principal Evaluation ................................... 160
Standards for Educational Leaders: An Analysis
H. National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals and ISLLC 2008 ........................................................141
1
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).
2
1 Mary 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
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.
•
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-LaunchesMajor-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx
5 http://www.wallacefoundation.org/view-latest-news/PressRelease/Pages/The-Wallace-Foundation-LaunchesMajor-Principal-Pipeline-Initiative-to-Help-School-Districts-Build-Corps.aspx//
CCSSO and CGCS’s work was multi-faceted and entailed the implementation of the following strategies:
3
•
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
4
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.
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 leadership 6, 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 CarolinaChapel 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
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).
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) educational leadership specialty area, conducted
5
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, DarlingHammond, 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.
6
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 researchbased changes, and articulate the research base” (NPBEA, 2006).
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.
7
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
8
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
8
9
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
http://www.corestandards.org/
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
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 collegeand 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
leaders with flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous
9
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
10
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.
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
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.
years with slight differentiations across state and local contexts. The DPS example provided above offers
11
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
12
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
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.
•
13
•
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.
14
•
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. CharlotteMecklenburg 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 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.
•
15
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.
16
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.
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
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)
“
Wallace Principal Pipeline Initiative.14 This report does not provide recommendations or
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 CGCSmember districts.
This interim report summarizes the results of a survey administered to district staff in
17
“
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 principalevaluation system. The survey also asked respondents to indicate how these roles and responsibilities
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)
“
18
“
had changed between 2010 and June 2012. Otherwise, all results apply to the school year ending
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 principalevaluation 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
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 principalevaluation 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 principalevaluation 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)
•
19
“
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
20
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
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
and, as such, to inform conversations concerning the potential expansion, revision, or overhaul of the
educational leadership standards.
guidance in specifying the knowledge and skills associated with best practice in educational leadership
21
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,
22
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
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
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
on trust (Frick, 2004, pp. 338-345).
23
‘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.
24
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
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
age-old question, “Which knowledge is of most worth?” According to Wraga (2006) there are three
25
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 &
26
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.
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
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
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.
to align and focus work on student learning (Honig et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004; Louis et al.,
27
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 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
28
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.,
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.
29
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).
Introduction
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
30
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).
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).
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).
31
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).
Introduction
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
32
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).
Introduction
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,
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?”
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).
33
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).
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
34
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).
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).
Introduction
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).
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).
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’
Candidates must also have knowledge of (a) how to effectively implement policy (Bulkley et al., 2010; Bush,
35
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).
36
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).
Introduction
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.
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
The focus is reflected in craft and practice scholarship on knowledge of “habits of the mind” that
37
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.
Introduction
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
38
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.
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
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 C
39
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
40
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
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 2011 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.
•
41
•
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
42
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.
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 studentlevel 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.
43
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:
44
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?
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?
10.
45
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 delegitimization of the university in educational leadership preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
2(1), 27-47.
46
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
Leadership, 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-StudentLearning.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.
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), 154-191.
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
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.
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
Taylor, D. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard one. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base
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.
47
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/Bridgeto-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
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: UCEA.
Young, M.D. (2012a). ELCC building-level standard five. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base
Young, M.D. (2012b). ELCC district-level standard five. In M. Young and H. Mawhinney (Eds.). The research base
48
Section X
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Research Supporting the ISLLC/ELCC Standards (Source: Young & Mawhinney, 2012)
Appendix B
Appendix C
Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the Educational Leadership
Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008
Appendix D
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
Appendix J
Appendix K
Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards
Appendix L
49
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
promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 95-113.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
52, 368-460.
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: an empirical investigation of prevalence and
effect. Educational administration quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: International Centre for Educational Change, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Falspohler, P., Boone, B., & Kwiatkowski, A. (2008). Community
collaboration to improve schools: Introducing a new model form Ohio. Children and Schools, 30(3), 161-172.
Anthes, K. (2005). Highlights: Leader standards. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Ares, N., & Buendia, E. (2007). Opportunities lost: Local translations of advocacy policy conversations. Teachers
College Record, 109(3), 561-589.
Armstrong, T. (2006). The best schools: How human development research should inform educational practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Aspiazu, G., Bauer, S. C., & Spillett, M. D. (1998). Improving the academic performance of Hispanic youth: A
community education model. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(2), 103-123.
Bainbridge, W. L., Lasley, T. J., & Sundre, S. M. (2003). Policy initiatives to improve urban schools - An agenda.
Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 292-299.
Baker, B. & Green, P. (2008). Politics, empirical evidence, and policy design: The case of school finance and the
costs of educational adequacy. In B. Cooper, J. Cibulka, & L. Fusarelli (Eds), Handbook of Educational
Policy (pp. 311-337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognition theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Banks, J. A. & McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education (4th ed). Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. A. (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. London & New York: Routledge.
Baptiste, H. P., Jr. (1999). The multicultural environment of schools: Implications to leaders. In L. W. Hughes, (Ed.),
The principal as leader (2nd ed.) (pp. 105- 127). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional leaders: Using mixed
methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals’ professional practice. Educational
Barnett, B. G., Copland, M. A., & Shoho, A. R. (2009). The use of internships in preparing school leaders. In M. D.
Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook on the education of school leaders. New
York: Routledge.
Barnyak, N. C., & McNelly, T. A. (2009). An urban school district’s parent involvement: A study of teachers’ and
administrators’ beliefs and practices. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 33-58.
Beck, L. G. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Beckner, W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Begley, P. T. & Johansson, O. (2003). The ethical dimensions of school leadership. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Begley, P. T. (2006) Self-knowledge, capacity and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic leadership by school
principals’, Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 570–89.
Bennett, N, Wise, C., Woods P., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership: A review of literature carried out
for National College for School Leadership. London, NCSL.
Benson, F., & Martin, S. (2003). Organizing successful parent involvement in urban schools. Child Study Journal,
33(3), 187-193.
Berger, E. H. (2003). Parents as partners in education: Families and schools working together (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bird, J. J., Wang, C., & Murray, L. M. (2009). Building budgets and trust through superintendent leadership.
Journal of Education Finance, 35(2), 140-156.
Bjork, L. (2000). Professional preparation and training. In T. E. Glass, L. Bjork & C. C. Brunner (Eds.), The study of the
American school superintendency (pp. 127-166). Alexandria, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Blanchard, K. (Ed.). (2007). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing
organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Blase, J. (2002). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(1), 6-44.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J., Frankland, H., Nelson, L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and
professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167-184.
Blumberg, A. (1989). School administration as a craft: Foundations of practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogotch, I. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership,
12, 138–156.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bowers, A. J. (2009). Reconsidering grades as data for decision making: More than just academic knowledge.
Journal of Educational Administration, 47(5), 609-629.
Boyd, V., & Hord, S. (1994). Schools as learning communities. Issues about Change, 4(1), 1-8.
Brandon, J., Morrow, R. & Schmold, S. (2011). A framework for school system success. Edmonton, AB: The
College of Alberta School Superintendents.
Brennan, A., & Brennan, D. (1988). The principal, ethics and special education decisions. NASSP Bulletin, 72(16), 16-19.
Brimley, V., Jr., & Garfield, R. R. (2005). Financing education in a climate of change, 9th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student
achievement. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.
Boone, M. (2001). Preparing superintendents through standards-based instruction. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Houston, TX.
51
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a global perspective.
Educational Policy, 24(1), 52-82.
Brooks, J., J. G., Normore, A., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how
influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 378-408.
Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning communities for ELL students:
Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 145-151.
Brooks-Young, S. (2002). Self-assessment activities for school administrators: A companion to making technology
standards work for you. Eugene OR: ISTE Publication.
Brooks-Young, S. (2004). Making technology standards work for you: A guide for school administrators. Eugene
OR: ISTE Publication.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy.
Educational Administrative Quarterly, 40, 79–110.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and
andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700-745.
Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Roney, K. (2004). Student achievement in high performing, suburban middle
schools and low performing, urban middle schools: Plausible explanations for the differences. . Education
and Urban Society, 36(4), 428-456.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity
transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468-503.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional
development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., Hunt, P., Allen, L. W., & Rowe, M. (2006). State Action to Enhance Student Learning:
Standards and Indicators for School Improvement. NCPEA 2006 Conference Presentation.
Brunner, C. C. (2000). Principles of power: Women superintendents and the riddle of the heart. SUNY Press.
Bulkley, K. E., Christman, J. B., Goertz, M. E., Lawrence, N. R. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the
district in Philadelphia’s benchmark assessment system. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 186-204.
Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming
mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519–535.
Burch, P., Theoharis, G. & Rauscher, E. (2010). Class Size Reduction in Practice: Investigating the Influence of the
Elementary School Principal. Educational Policy, 24(2), 330-358.
Busch, J. R. (2003). School leadership formation: A multimethod evaluation study of the Southern Tier Leadership
Academy. Unpublished Ed.D., State University of New York at Binghamton, New York, U.S.A.
52
Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271-288.
Bustamante, R. M., Nelson, J. A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). Assessing schoolwide cultural competence:
Implications for school leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 793-827.
Cairney, T. (2000). Beyond the classroom walls: The rediscovery of the family and community as partners in
education. Education Review, 52(2), 163-174.
Cambron, N. H., McCarthy, M.M., & Thomas, S. B. (2004). School law: Teachers’ and students’ rights. Boston, MA:
Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, C., DeArmond, M., & Schumwinger, A. (2004). From bystander to ally. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Card, D., & Payne, A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of
student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 49-82.
Cardno, C. (2002). Team learning: Opportunities and challenges for school leaders. School Leadership and
Management, 22(2), 211-223.
Carr, C. S., Chenoweth, T., & Ruhl, T. (2003). Best practices in educational leadership preparation programs. In
F. C. Lunnenberg & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and emerging perspectives:
The eleventh yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (pp. 204-222).
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Casner-Lotto, J. (1988). Expanding the teacher’s role: Hammond’s school improvement process. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69, 349-353.
Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education:
Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5(2), 249-177.
Center for Educational Leadership. (2007). Aiming high: Leadership for district-wide instructional improvement.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Chance, E. W., Copeland, M., Farris, A., & Allen, K. (1994). Case study of school/community collaboration: Two
school districts and their efforts to develop a school district vision. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED379794)
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard
Business Review, 84, 55-68.
Chouhoud, Y., & Zirkel, P. (2008). The Goss progeny: An empirical analysis. San Diego Law Review, 45(2), 353-82.
Chrispeels, J. H. (1992). Using an effective schools framework to build home-school partnerships for student
success. Occasional Report of the National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of
all students. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 83-104.
Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis
of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.
Coalition for Community Schools, & Institute for Educational Leadership. (2003). Making the difference: Research
and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) (2009). The CASS Framework for school system success:
Moving and improving building system leadership capacity. Edmonton, AB: Author.
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the
schools. NY: Teachers College Press.
Colombo, M. W. (2004). Family literacy nights…and other home-school connections. Educational Leadership,
61(8), 48-51.
Conley, S. (2006). In F. English (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 153)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conley, S., Fauske, J., & Pounder, D. (2004). Teacher work group effectiveness, Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(5), 663-703.
Cook, W. J., Jr. (2001). Strategic planning for America’s schools. Montgomery, AL: The Cambridge Group.
Cooper, B. S., Ehrensal, P. A. L., & Bromme, M. (2005). School-level politics and professional development: Traps
in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125.
Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., Jackson, B. L., & Poster, J. (2002). Is “superintendent preparation” an oxymoron?
Analyzing changes in programs, certification, and control. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 242-255.
Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., Randall, E. V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Conley, S., & Glasman, N. S. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation. Educational Policy,
22(1), 63-85.
53
Cooper, C. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: implications for expanding
transformative leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 694-724.
Cooper, R. (1996). Detracking reform in an urban California high school: Improving the schooling experiences.
Education, 65(2), 190-208.
Copeland, S. (2004). A study of field experiences and leadership opportunities in principal preparation programs in the
16 SREB member states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation., The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.
Copland, M. A. (2000). Problem-based learning and prospective principals’ problem-framing ability. Educational
Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for school improvement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 375-475.
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(1), 78-84.
Cordeiro, P., & Sloan, E. S. (1996). Administrative interns as legitimate participants in the community of practice.
Journal of School Leadership, 6.
Corson, D. (1995a). Ideology and distortion in the administration of outgroup interests. In D. Corson (Ed.),
Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 87-110). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Corson, D. (l995b). Power and the discourses of policy and curriculum: An introduction. In D. Corson (Ed.),
Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 133-148). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. (1980). The principal as instructional leader: Research on school effectiveness project.
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Cox, E. P. (2007). Assessing the relevance of the educational specialist program. AASA Journal of Scholarship &
Practice, 3(4), 22-30.
Crain, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of career and technical education superintendents and secondary directors in
Ohio on leadership preparation experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State
University, Bowling Green, Ohio.
Creighton, T. (2007). Schools and data: The educator’s guide for using data to improve decision making (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Crow, G. M., & Matthews, J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership.
Crow, G., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 36 (2), 216-254.
54
Crowson, R. L. (1998). School-community relations, under reform (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Cuban, L. (1983). Effective schools: A friendly but cautionary note. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 695-696.
Cunningham, W., & Cordeiro, P. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice. Boston: Pearson.
D’Angelo, A., & Zirkel, P. (2008). An outcomes analysis of student-initiated litigation. West’s Education Law
Reporter, 226(2), 539-555.
Dalton, M. H. (2007). internship and portfolio for superintendent preparation. National Forum of Educational
Administration and Supervision Journal, 25, 1-5.
Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability the potential of leadership and trust. Educational
Dantley, M. (2002). Uprooting and replacing positivism, the melting pot, multiculturalism, and other impotent notions
in education leadership through an African American perspective. Education and Urban Society, 34, 334–352.
Dantley, M., & Tillman, L. (2006). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In C. Marshall & M. Olivia
(Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions happen (pp. 16–29). Boston: Pearson.
Darling-Hammond, L., La Pointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing
world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., La Pointe, M. M., & Orr, M. T. (2009). Preparing principals for a changing
world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in success for all
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219-249.
Davidson, B. M., & Taylor, D. L. (1999). Examining principal succession and teacher leadership in school restructuring.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.) (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. London: Springer.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2009). Shaping school culture (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deering, P. D. (1996). An ethnographic study of norms of inclusion and cooperation in a multiethnic middle
school. Urban Review, 28(1), 21-39.
Delpit, L. (1992). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the source - Response differences among teachers, principals, and districts on
survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640-676.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252.
Douglas, D. C. (1992). Challenging the conventional assumptions about the preparation programs for aspiring
superintendents. In F. C. Wendel (Ed.), Reforming administrator preparation programs (pp. 45-56).
University Park, PA: University Council of Educational Administration.
Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Duffy, F. M. (Ed.) (2006). Power, politics. and ethics in school districts: Dynamic leadership for systemic change.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleton Publishers, Inc.
Duke, D., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year ‘turnaround’ principal. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33-58.
Durlak, J. A., et al. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community
system. American Journal of Community Psychology. 39(3-4), 269-286.
Earthman, G. and Lemasters, L. (2004). School maintenance & renovation: Administrator policies, practices &
economics. Lancaster, PA: Pro-Active Publications.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-18, 20-24.
Edwards, P. A. (2003). Children’s literacy development: Making it happen through school, family, and community
involvement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, J. C. (2002). A study of the internship component of the innovative leadership program at the University of
Alabama from 1994 to 2000. Unpublished Ph.D., The University of Alabama, United States -- Alabama.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure of school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute, Washington, D.C.
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in
Community School District #2, New York City. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.
Englert, R. M. (1993). Understanding the urban context and conditions of practice of school administration. In P.
B. Forsyth & M. Tallerico (Eds.), City schools: Leading the way (pp. 1-63). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions. Journal of Educational
Administration, 47(3), 321-333.
55
English, F. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of educational administration.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
English, F. W. (Editor) (2006). Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration Vol. 1&2. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the Partnership Schools Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Model. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 151-170.
Epstein, J. L. et al. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12-18.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and
community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81-120.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family
and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308-18.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Salinas, K. C., Simon, B. S., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family,
and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational
Evers. C. W. (1985). Hodgkinson on ethics and the philosophy of administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 21(4), 27-50.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their
relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology
Review, 33(4), 467-480.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game: Superintendents and
principals talk about school leadership. New York, NY: Public Agenda
Farmer, T. A. (2009). Unique rural district politics. Rural Educator, 30(2), 29-33.
Feuerstein, A. (2001). Selling our schools? Principals’ views on schoolhouse commercialism and school-business
interactions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 322-371.
Fiala, C. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2003). Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum-based measurement to
assess the effects of paired reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40(6), 613-626.
Fine, M. (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Reflections on public high schools in the midst of change.
New York: Teachers College Press.
56
Firestone, W. A. (2009). Culture and process in effective school districts. In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola. (2009).
Studies in school improvement: A volume in research and theory in educational administration. (pp. 138177). Information Age Publishing.
Firestone, W. A., & Gonzáles, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. In P.
A. Moss (Ed.). Evidence and decision making. 106 th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education: Part I (pp. 132-154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Firestone, W. A., & Martinez, C. (2009). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing
instructional practice. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.). Distributed leadership according to
the evidence, pp. 61-86. New York: Routledge.
Firestone, W. A., & Martinez, C. (2009). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing
instructional practice. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.). Distributed leadership according to
the evidence (pp. 61-86). New York: Routledge.
Firestone, W. A., Mangin, M. M., Martinez, M. C., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent professional
development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413.
Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates and civic
commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2),
421-431.
Flanagan, L., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school
improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88.
Foster, W. P. (2004). The decline of the local: A challenge to educational leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(2), 176-191.
Fowler, F. C. (2000). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Franke, T. M., Isken, J. A., & Parra, M. T. (2003). A pervasive school culture for the betterment of student
outcomes: One school‘s approach to student mobility. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 150-7.
Franklin, S. H. (2006). Exploratory comparative case studies of two principal preparation programs. Unpublished
Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin, United States -- Texas.
Franklin, S. H. (2006). Exploratory comparative case studies of two principal preparation programs. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, –Austin, Texas.
Frattura, E., & Capper, C.A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners. Newbury Park,
CA: Corwin.
Freidman, A. A. (2004). Beyond mediocrity: transformational leadership within a transactional framework.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3, 203-224.
Frick, D. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Frye, B., Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2005). The internship. How can we get it right? Atlanta, GA: Southern Region
Educational Board.
Fuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation in children’s
schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29-39.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change process and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391-421.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership. Downloaded from http://secondary.newham.gov.
uk/BSF/Change%20Leader%20-%20Fullan.pdf.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.
Fullan, M., Miles, M., & Taylor, G. (1981). Organization development in schools: The state of the art. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Education.
Furman, G. C., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological
analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 49-78.
Gaitan, C. D. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement through home-school
partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gause, C. P. (2008). Old school meets new school: unsettling times at freedom junior-senior high. Journal of
Cases in Educational Leadership. 10.1177/1555458908314504v1.pdf download from http://jel.sagepub.com
hosted at http://online.sagepub.co
Gavin, I., & Zirkel, P. (2008). An outcome analysis of school employee-initiated litigation: A comparison of 1977-81
and 1997-2001 decisions. West’s Education Law Reporter, 232(1), 19-36.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational
Research, 47(2), 335-397.
57
Geismar, T. J., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). Selecting mentors for principal interns. Journal of School
Leadership, 10(3), 233-247.
Geismar, T.J., Morris, J.D., & Lieberman, M.G. (2000). Selecting mentors for principal interns. Journal of School
Leadership, 10(3), 233-247.
Gerber, S.B., Finn, J., Achilles, C.M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). Teacher’s aides and student academic
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 123-143.
Gerstl-Pepin, C. I. (2006). The paradox of poverty narratives: Educators struggling with children left behind.
Gigante, N. (2006). Teacher leadership in context: Its relationship with social, material, and human resources in
schools implementing reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Bruner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency: A look
at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of
School Administrators.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of
teacher collaboration for school improvement and achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers
College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mckee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence.
Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Gooden, M. A. (2005). The role of an African American principal in an urban information technology high school.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 630-650.
Gordon, M. F., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Linking parent and community involvement with student achievement:
Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of stakeholder influence. American Journal of Education,
116(1), 1-32.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of student resources on student achievement. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 162-186.
Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management
Administration Leadership, 28, 317-338.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of
educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-696). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
58
Gross, S., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Using multiple ethical paradigms and turbulence theory in response to
administrative dilemmas. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 47–62.
Grubb, W. N. (2007). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the “improved” school finance with NELS88.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 104-144.
Grundy, S. (1993). Educational leadership as emancipatory praxis. In J. Blackmore and J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender
matters in educational administration and policy: A feminist introduction (pp. 165-177). London: Falmer Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Multiple sources of evidence: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions of various indicators
of student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(1), 19-27.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Hallinger, P. H., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical
research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hallinger, P. H., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P. H., & Murphy. J. (1986). Instructional leadership in effective schools. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED309535)
Hallinger, P., & Edwards, M. A. (1992). The paradox of superintendent leadership in school restructuring. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(2), 131-149.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy. J. (1986). Instructional leadership in effective schools. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED309535)
Halpin, A. (1966). School management and organization. New York: Macmillan
Halverson, R. & Collins, A. (2006). Information technologies and the future of schooling in the United States.
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 145-155.
Halverson, R. (2010). School formative feedback systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 130-146.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The New Instructional Leadership: Creating DataDriven Instructional Systems in Schools. WCER Working Paper 2005-9. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for
Educational Research.
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of
three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Harris, A (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 32, 11-24.
Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association meeting, New Orleans.
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal
Leadership in Education, 3,315-325.
Harris, A. (Ed.) (2009). Distributed leadership. Different perspectives. London: Springer.
Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances. London:
National College for School Leadership.
Harry. B. (1992). An ethnographic study of cross-cultural communication with Puerto Rican American families in
the special education system. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 471-494.
Hayes, D., Christie, P., Mills, M., & Lingard, B. (2004). Productive leaders and productive leadership: Schools as
learning organisations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4/5), 520.
Heck, R. H. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: Theoretical descriptors of practice listed below and
research methods. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates..
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229.
Hentschke, G. C., Nayfack, M. B., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring superintendent leadership in smaller urban
districts: Does district size influence superintendent behavior? Education and Urban Society, 41(3), 317-337.
Herzberg, F., & Mauser, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2004). The motivation to work.(originally published in 1959). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
Hess, G. A., Jr. (1993). Race and the liberal perspective in Chicago school reform. In C. Marshall (Ed.), The
new politics of race and gender. The 1992 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 85-96).
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Haynes, P. O. (1997). Public school superintendents’ perceptions of American Association of School Administrators
professional standards and superintendent preparation programs in the state of Illinois. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.
59
Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2006). Reflections and directions on research related to family-community involvement in
schooling. The School Community Journal, 16(1), 7-30.
Hickey, M. E. (2006). Parents, power, and the politics of school reform. In F. M. Duffy (Ed.), Power, politics. and
ethics in school districts: Dynamic leadership for systemic change (pp. 193-206). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littleton Publishers, Inc.
Hightower, A. (2002). San Diego’s big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning (Research Report).
Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Hochberg, E. D., & Desimone, L. M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building
capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89-106.
Hodgkinson, C. (2003). Conclusion: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow: A post-postmodern purview. In
P.T. Begley & O. Johansson (Eds.). The ethical dimensions of school leadership (pp. 221-231). Norwell, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoffman, L. P. (2009). Educational leadership and social activism: A call for action. Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 41(4), 391-410.
Holler, R., & Zirkel, P. (2008). Section 504 and public schools: A national survey concerning “Section 504-only”
students. NASSP Bulletin, 92(1), 19-43.
Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, H. A., & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for
district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., et al. (2005). Why
do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2),
105-130.
Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of
Education, 116, August, 2010. Electronically published.
Howard, M. K. (2007). Oklahoma’s career and technical center superintendents’ preception of the their
preparation and the preparation of future superintendents. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Howland, A., Anderson, J. A., Smiley, A. D., & Abbott, D. J. (2006). School liaisons: Bridging the gap between
home and school. The School Community Journal, 16(2), 47-68.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2004). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Education leadership and reform: A volume in research and theory in
educational administration. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary
School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
60
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high
schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77-93.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A
comparative analysis Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 260-279.
Hoyle, J. (2007). Leadership and futuring: Making visions happen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Hoyle, J. (2005a). The standards movement in educational administration: The quest for respect. In T. Creighton,
S. Harris, & J. Coleman (Eds.) Crediting the past, challenging the present, and creating the future. National
Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Summit on the Preparation of School Leaders,
Flagstaff, Arizona: Northern Arizona University Press.
Hoyle, J. (2005b, Summer). The good news about the preparation of school leaders: A professor’s view. School
Leadership Review, 1(1), 2-19.
Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO: Standards-based performance.
Hoyle, J., & Collier, V. (2006). Urban CEO Superintendents’ Alternative Strategies in Reducing School Dropouts.
Education and Urban Society, 39(1) 69-90.
Hoyle, J., English, F., & Steffy, B. (1998). Skills for successful 21st century school leaders. Lanham, MD,
Scarecrow Press.
Huber, S. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: An international comparison of development
programs in 15 countries. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Huefner, D. S. (1994). The mainstreaming cases - tensions and trends for school administrators. Educational
Humbaugh, S. S. (2000). A case study of the impact of the Indiana School Executive Leadership Academy as
perceived by its graduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the “data-driven” mantra: Different conceptions of datadriven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Ed.). Evidence and decision making. 106 th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education: Part I (pp. 105-131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ingvarson, L. C., Anderson, M., Gronn, P., & Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for school leadership: A critical review
of the literature. Canberra: Teaching Australia. Downloaded July 5, 2010 from www.teachingaustralia.edu.
au/ta/go/home/publications/pid/301.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2002). Community schools: Improving student learning/strengthening
schools, families, and communities. Washington, DC: Author.
Isabelle, C., & Lapointe, C. (2003). Start at the top: successfully integrating information and communication
technologies in schools by training principals. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49(2), n/a.
Iselt, C. C. (1999). Texas superintendents’ perceptions of their superintendent preparation programs: In general
and by gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, –Huntsville, Texas.
Jacobson, S. L., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007). Successful leadership in three high-poverty
urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 291-317.
Jenlink, P.M. (Ed). (2009). Equity issues for today’s educational leaders: Meeting the challenge of creating
equitable schools for all. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student
academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269.
Johnson, B. L., & Fauske, J. R. (2000). Principals and the political economy of environmental enactment.
Johnson, L. (2003). Multicultural policy as social activism: Redefining who counts in multicultural edition. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 107-121.
Johnson, P. A., & Ingle, W. K. (2009). Campaign strategies and voter approval of school referenda: A mixed
methods analysis. Journal of School Public Relations, 30(1), 51-71.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jones, J. L. H. (1999). A qualitative analysis of collaborative, field-based principal preparation programs in Texas.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Commerce, Texas.
Juettner, V. (2003). Culturally responsive schools: Leadership, language, and literacy development. Talking Points,
14(2), 11-16.
Kamler, E. (2009). Decade of Difference (1995-2005): An examination of the superintendent search consultants’
process on Long Island. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 115-144.
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2001). Findings with national implications how principals can help teachers with
high-stakes testing. NASSP Bulletin, 85(15).
Johnson, R. G. (Ed.) (2009). Educating for both advocacy and action. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
61
Katz. A. (1999, April). Keepin’ it real: Personalizing school experiences for diverse learners to create harmony
instead of conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Kaufman, R., Herman, J., & Watters, K. (1996). Educational planning: strategic, tactical, operational. Lancaster,
PA: Technomic.
Kercheval, A., & Newbill, S. L. (2001). A case study of key effective practices in Ohio’s improved school districts.
Bloomington: Indiana Center for Evaluation.
Kidron,Y., & Darwin, M. J. (2007). A systematic review of whole school improvement models. Journal of Education
for Children Placed at Risk, 12(1), 9-35.
King, M. B. (2004). School- and district-level leadership for teacher workforce development: Enhancing teacher
learning and capacity. In M. A. Smylie & D. Miretzky (Eds.). Developing the teacher workforce: 103rd
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 303-325). Chicago: National Society
for the Study of Education.
Kirst, M. W. (2009). Grading education: Getting accountability right. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 155-157.
Kirst, M. W., & Edelstein, F. (2006). The maturing mayoral role in education. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2),
152-164.
Kissinger, A. (2007). Strengthening school improvement plans through district sponsorship. In D. W. Lick & C.
U. Murphy (Eds.). The whole-faculty study groups fieldbook: Lessons learned and best practices from
classrooms, districts, and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Klingner, J., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., et al. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally
responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Available at http://epaa.asu.
edu/epaa/v13n38/
Knapp, M. S. et al. (2003). Leading for learning sourcebook: Concepts and examples. Seattle, WA: Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of datainformed leadership. In P. A. Moss (Ed.). Evidence and decision making. 106 th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education: Part I (pp. 74-104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of datainformed leadership. In P. Moss (Ed.). Evidence and decision making. 106 th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education: Part I. (pp. 74-104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Plecki, M. L. & Portin, B. S. (2006). Leading, learning and leadership support.
Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Knapp, M. S., Swinnerton, J. A., Copland, M. A., & Monpas-Huber, J. (2006). Data-informed leadership in
education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
62
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knox, K. S., & Roberts, A. R. (2005). Crisis intervention and crisis team models in schools. Children and Schools,
27(2), pp 93-100.
Kohl, H. (2007). I won’t learn from you! Confronting student resistance. Rethinking our classrooms. Vol. 1:
Teaching for equity and justice (new edition), (pp. 165-166). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Koschoreck, J. W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of an urban district.
Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 284-304.
Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Contemporary school administration (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kowalski, T. J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public relations in schools (3rd
ed., pp. 3-29) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kowalski, T. J. (2009). Need to address evidence-based practice in educational administration. Educational
Kowalski, T., Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. (2005). Facing an uncertain future: An investigation of the preparation
and readiness of first-time superintendents to lead in a democratic society. Retrieved on-line July 15, 2010:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=gse_fac
Kowalski, T., Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2009). Novice superintendents and the efficacy of professional
preparation. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 16-26.
Kronley, R. A., & Handley, C. (2003). Reforming relationships: School districts, external organizations, and systemic
change. New York: School Communities That Work.
Kurland, H. Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and organizational learning: The mediate
effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research
Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lakomski, G. (1987). Values and decision making in educational administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 23(3), 70-82.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Landsman, J. (2006). Bearers of hope. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 26-32.
Langlois, L. (2004) Responding ethically: Complex decision-making by school district superintendents.
International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 78–93.
LaPlant, J. (1988). An examination of approaches to field-based learning in other professions. Paper presented at
the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Larson, C. L., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, 101(1), 134-161.
Lawrence, S. E. (2008). An analysis of various university-based superintendent preparation programs and their
alignment with research findings, scholars’ opinions, and practitioners’ experience. University of Texas,
Austin, Austin, TX.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement.
Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.
Leistyna, P. (2002). Extending the possibilities of multicultural community partnerships in urban public schools.
Urban Review, 34, 1-23.
Leithwood, K. (2008). Characteristics of high performing school districts: A review of empirical evidence.
Edmonton, AB: College of Alberta School Superintendents.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K. A. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Bristol, PA: Taylor Frances Inc.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 10(4), 451-479.
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J.P. (2009). Transformational school leadership effects on schools, teachers, and students.
In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola. (2009). Studies in school improvement: A volume in research and theory in
educational administration. (pp. 1-22). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both
school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797-832.
63
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student
engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Supplemental), 679-706.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research: 1996-2005.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students,
teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 201-227.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contribution of leader efficacy.
Leithwood, K., & Prestine, N. (2002). Unpacking the chllenges of leadership at the school and district level. In J.
Murphy (Ed.), Challenges of school leadership (NSSE Yearbook). Chicago, Il: Univesrity of Chicago Press.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl
(Eds.). A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 12-27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school administrators: theory
and practice. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 317-345.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem-solving: Evidence from school and district leaders. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: The
Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Coffin, G., & Wilson, P. (1996). Preparing school leaders: What works? Journal of School
Leadership, 6(3), 316-342.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.
Toronto, Canada: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement & Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T. (Eds.) (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. New
York: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A (2007). Distributing leadership to
make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement
accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Raun, T. (1993). Superintendents‘ group problem-solving processes. Educational
Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 36(2), 289-303.
64
Levine, D. U., & Stark, J. (1981). Instructional and organizational arrangements and processes for improving
academic achievement at inner city elementary schools: A study of the Chicago Mastery Reading Program
and other school-wide approaches for improving reading at selected schools in Chicago, Los Angeles, and
New York. Extended summary and conclusions. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED213814)
Lezotte, L. W., & Jacoby, B. C. (1992). Sustainable school reform: The district context for school reform. Okemos,
MI: Effective Schools Products.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1986). On goodness in schools: Themes of Empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(3), 9-28.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norm of collegiality and experimentation: Work place conditions of school success. American
Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Lopez, G. (2006). Diversity. In F. English (Ed.) Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 297300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational
Lopez, R. A. (2003). The Long Beach Unified School District uniform initiative: A prevention-intervention strategy
for urban schools. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(4), 396-405.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing. London: Routledge.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student
learning: Final report of research findings. Learning from leadership Project. CAREI, University of Minnesota.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757- 798.
Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student
work in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Louis, K., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lunenburg, F., & Orenstein, A. (2007). Educational administration: Descriptors of practice listed below and
practices, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Luo, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling for high school principals’ data-driven decision making: An analysis
of information use environments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 603-634.
Lupini, W., & Zirkel, P. (2003). An outcomes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy, 17(2), 257-279.
Lyman, L. L., & Villani, C. J. (2002). The complexity of poverty: A missing component of educational leadership
programs. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 246–280.
Lytle, J. H. (2009). The context of superintendent entry. School Administrator, 66(5), 8-9.
MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: A matter of practice. School Leadership and Management,
25, 349-366.
Madda, C. L., Halverson, R. R., & Gomez, L. M. (2007). Exploring coherence as an organizational resource for
carrying out reform initiatives. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1957-1979.
Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis of confidence. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity:
Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631-660.
Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory
of action”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113-132.
Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal
influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37.
Marsh, D. D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential perspectives.
In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 126-155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, J. A. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools and communities: A review of emerging literature. In
A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional
renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The role
of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the
Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
Marshall, C., & Anderson, A.I. (Eds.) (2008). Activist educators: Breaking past limits. New York: Routledge.
Marshall, C., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2005). Re-framing educational politics for social justice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and
instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 370-397.
65
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Marshall, C., & Ward, M. (2004). “Yes, but. . . ”: Education leaders discuss social justice. Journal of School
Leadership, 14, 530–563.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
Massell, D., & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M.
Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal. New York City, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Mathematica Policy Research and the Center for Children and Families. (2001). Building their futures: How early
Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Washington,
DC: Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Available: http://www.acf.dhhs.gove/programs/core/ongoing_research/ehs/ehs_reports.html
Mawhinney, H. B. (2003). Resolving the dilemma of rigor or relevance in preparing educational leaders: What
counts as evidence of their knowledge and ability to act ethically? In F. Lunenberg & Carr, C. (Eds.).
Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and emerging perspectives (pp. (pp. 146-184), National Council for
Professors of Educational Administration Annual Yearbook. Virginia: Scarecrow Press.
Mawhinney, H. B. (2008). Towards a new political leadership praxis in the rescaled space of urban educational
governance. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.). Handbook of research on the politics of
education (pp. 411-430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mawhinney, H. B. (2009). Deliberative democracy in imagined communities: How the power of geometry
of globalization shapes local leadership praxis. In F.W. English, (Ed.). Educational leadership and
administration Vol. 4. London: Sage.(Reprint)
Mawhinney, H. B. (2010). Shifting scales of education politics in a vernacular of disruption and dislocation.
Mawhinney, H. B., Haas, J., & Wood, C. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of collective efficacy and school conditions
for professional learning. Second Annual UCEA Refereed Conference Proceedings: Convention 2005:
Democracy in Educational Leadership: The Unfinished Journey Toward Justice: http://coe.ksu.edu/ucea.
Maxcy, B. D., & Nguyen, T. S. T. (2006). The politics of distributing leadership - Reconsidering leadership
distribution in two Texas elementary schools. Educational Policy, 20(1), 163-196.
Mayer, M. J., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). How safe are our schools? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 7-15.
Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in
the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424-435.
66
Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Sources of leadership for inclusive education: Creating schools for all
children. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 423-449.
McCauley, C., & Hughes-James, M. W. (1996). An evaluation of the outcomes of a leadership development
program. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
McConnell, T. J., & Rorrer, A. K. (2009). Professional Behavior: Crossing the Line. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 12(2), 19-43.
McFadden, B. W. (2006, January/February). The politics of adequate funding. Leadership, 35(3), 12-15.
McGough, D. J. (2003). Principals’ professional perspectives leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and
transformation of principals’ professional perspectives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4),
449-471.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., Miller, K. B., & Moore, G. H. (2002). Connecting with families: A K-8 resource of tips,
techniques, and activities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools
that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M., et al. (2008). From the field:
A proposal for education leaders for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 111-138.
McKerrow, K. (1998). Administrative internships: Quality or quantity? Journal of School Leadership, 8(2), 171-186.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities.
Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1990). Staff development and school change. In A. Lieberman (Ed.). Schools as
collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 213-232). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. M. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M.
McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McLeod, S. (2008). Educational technology leadership. Technology & Learning, 28(11),551.
McPike, L. (1987). Shared decision making at the school site: Moving toward a professional model-An interview
with Patrick O’Rourke. American Educator, 11(1), 10-17, 46.
McQuillan, P. J., & Salomon-Fernandez, Y. (2008). The impact of state intervention on “underperforming” schools
in Massachusetts: Implications for policy and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(18), 1-43.
Mercado, L. P. (2002). The Secondary Principalship Academy: A critical ethnography of the Houston Independent
School District and the University of Houston’s innovative principal preparation program. Unpublished
Ed.D., University of Houston, United States -- Texas.
Meyer, J. W. (1984). Organizations as ideological systems. In T. J. Sergiovanni and J. E. Corbally, Leadership and
organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice (pp. 186-205). Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, K., & Frank, S. (2008). The strategic school: Making the most of people, time and money. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Militello, M., Schimmel, D., & Eberwein, H. J. (2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge
impacts principals’ practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93 (1), 27-52.
Miller, L. (1988). Unlikely beginnings: The district office as a starting point for developing a professional culture for
teaching. In A. Lieberman (Ed.). Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 167-184). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Miller, T. N., Salsberry, T. A., & Devin, M. A. (2009). Power and the role of the superintendent. Educational
Considerations, 36(2), 26-34.
Milstein, M. M., Bobroff, & Restine, N. A. (1991). Internship programs in educational administration: A guide to
preparing educational leaders. NY: Teachers College Press.
Mintrop, H. (2004). High-stakes accountability, state oversight, and educational equity. Teachers College Record,
106(11), 2128-2145.
Mintrop, H., & MacLellan, A. M. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on
probation. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275-300.
Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school
improvement-and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364.
Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A
descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press.
Milstein, M. M., & Kruger, J. (1997). Improving educational administration preparation programs: What we have
learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 100-116.
67
Miretsky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-teacher perspectives on their
relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814-851.
Miron, L. F. (1997). Resisting discrimination: Affirmative strategies for principals and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Mitchell, D. E., & Boyd, W. L. (1998). Knowledge utilization in educational policy and politics: Conceptualizing and
mapping the domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 126-140.
Mitra, D. L. Movit, M., & Frick, W. (2008). Brain drain in the rust belt - Can educational reform help to build civic
capacity in struggling communities? Educational Policy, 22(5), 731-757.
Monk, D. (1992). Educational productivity research: An update and assessment of its role in education finance
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 307-332.
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: examining relationships
between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational
Morrisey, M. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Moss, P. A., & Piety, P. J. (2007). Introduction: Evidence and decision making. In P. A. Moss (Ed.). Evidence and
decision making. 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part I (pp. 1-14).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(8), 961-972.
Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In L. S. Lotto & P. Thurston (Eds.), Advances in educational
administration: Changing perspective on the school (163-200), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Murphy, J. (2000, February). Governing America’s schools: The shifting playing field. Teachers College Record,
102(1), 57-84.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of the ISLLC Standards and addressing concerns in the academic
community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154-191.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). The development of comprehensive school reform. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow
(Eds.).Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school
districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(2), 213-236.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districs. Journal of Educational
Research, 81(3), 175-181.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (1994). Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts.
68
Murphy, J., Beck, L. G., Knapp, M. S., & Portin, B. S. (2003). KEYS and the larger school reform movement in the
United States. In B. S. Portin, L. G. Beck, M. S. Knapp, &J. Murphy (Eds.), Self-reflective renewal in schools:
Lessons from a national initiative (pp. 1-15). Norwood, NJ: Greenwood.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual
foundation. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A taxonomy and model of
leadership behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27(2).
Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D. & Louis, K.S. (2009). The role of the principal in fostering the development
of distributed leadership. School Leadership & Management, 29(2), 181-214.
Murphy, M., Martin, M. & Muth, R.(1997). Partnerships for preparing school leaders: Possibilities and
practicalities. In R. Muth, & M. Martin (Eds.). Toward the year 2000: Leadership and Quality Schools. The
sixth yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. (238-246), Lanham,
MA: Scarecrow Press,
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Understanding how students learn: A guide for instructional leaders.
Murtadha, K., & Watts, D. M. (2005). Linking the struggle for education and social justice: Historical
perspectives of African American leadership in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4),
591-608.
Nance, J. P. (2003). Public school administrators and technology policy making. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(4), 434-467.
Nazinga-Johnson, S., Baker, J. A., & Aupperlee, J. (2009). Teacher-parent relationships and school involvement
among racially and educationally diverse parents of kindergartners. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1),
81-91.
Nevin, A. (1979). Special education administration competencies required of the general education administrator.
Exceptional Children, 45(5), 363-365.
Nystrand, R. (1981). Leadership theories for principals. Theory into Practice, 20, 260-263.
Odden, A. & Kelley, C. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation
strategies to improve schools, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Opfer, V.D. (2006). Evaluating equity: A framework for understanding action and inaction on social justice issues.
Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination. Teachers College
Record, 108(7), 1362.
Orr, M. T. (2011). Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates’ experiences in, through, and beyond
leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 114-172.
Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). Graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders:
A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for
principals. Educational Administration Quarterly,47(1), 18-70.
Osterman, K., & Fishbein, S. (2001). Reshaping the administrative internship through research and reflective
practice. Paper presented at the The American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Osterman.K., & Fishbein, S. (2001). Reshaping the administrative internship through research
Owen, J. (2007). Getting your political bearings. Principal Leadership, 8(2), 46-50.
Owen, J. C. (2006). The impact of politics in local education: Navigating white water: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Pajak, E. F., & Glickman, C. D. (1989). Dimensions of school district improvement. Educational Leadership, 61-34.
Papa, R., & Fortune, R. (2002). Leadership on purpose: Promising practices for African American and Hispanic
students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Pascopella, A. (2009). A superintendent’s high expectations. District Administration, 45(5), 34-36.
Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher out-reach and parent involvement in
children’s education. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20(1/2), 103-119.
Pena, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Education Research,
94(1), 42-54.
Perry, T., & Fraser, J. W. (1993). Reconstructing schools as multiracial/multicultural democracies: Toward a
theoretical perspective. In T. Perry and J. W. Fraser (Eds.). Freedom’s plow: Teaching in the multicultural
classroom (pp. 3-24). New York: Routledge.
Piltch, B., & Fredericks, R. (2005, January/February). Politics and the principalship: A principal’s guide to school
politics. Principal, 84(3), 10-14.
Papalewis, R. (2004). The practice of theory to theory of practice: The prime directive. In C. Fulmer and C. Carr
(Eds) 8th Yearbook of NCPEA.
69
Pink, W. T. (1986). Facilitating change at the school level: A mission factor in school reform. Urban Review,
18(1), 19-30.
Plecki, M. L., Knapp, M. S., Castaneda, R., Halverson, T., LaSorta, R., & Lochmiller, C. (2009). How leaders invest
staffing resources for learning improvement. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington.
Podsokoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their
effects on followers’ trust in leader satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Porterfield, K., & Carnes, M. (2008). Why school communication matters: Strategies from PR professional. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Portin, B. (2003). Making sense of leadership schools. A study of the school principalship. Seattle, WA: Center
on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
Portin, B., Alejano, C., Knapp, M., & Marzolf, E. (2006). Redefining roles, responsibilities, and authority of school
leaders. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Portin, B., Knapp, M., Dareff, S., Feldman, S., Russell, F., Samuelson, C., & Yeh, T. (2009). Leadership for
learning improvement in urban schools. University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Gundlach. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the
school principalship (Report No. EA 032 811). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481977)
Pounder, D. G. & Merrill, R. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (2), 25-57.
Pounder, D. G. (1988). The male/female salary differential for school administrators: Implications for career
patterns and placement of women. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(1), 519. [ERIC #EJ 481 198]
Pounder, D. G. (1989). Improving the predictive validity of teacher selection decisions: Lessons from teacher
appraisal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation, 2(2), 123132.
Pounder, D. G. (1998). Teacher teams: Redesigning teachers’ work for collaboration. In D. Pounder (Ed),
Restructuring Schools for Collaboration (pp. 65-88). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group
enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317-348.
Pounder, D. G., Galvin, P., & Shepard, P. (2003). An analysis of the United States Educational Administrator
Shortage, Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 133-145.
70
Pounder, D. G., King, D. K., Hausman, C., & Bowles, W. B. (2005). The complexity of gender-role stereotyping
effects in high school principal selection. In W. Hoy and C. Miskel (Series Editors), Educational Leadership
and Reform (pp 265-300). A volume in Research and Theory in Educational Administration. Greenwich,
CN: Information Age Publishing.
Powell, D., Higgins, H. J., Aram, R., & Freed, A. (2009). Impact of no child left behind on curriculum and
instruction in rural schools. Rural Educator, 31(1), 19-28.
Prawat, R. S. (1991). Conversations with self and settings: A framework for thinking about teacher empowerment.
American Educational Research Journal, 28, 737-757.
Price, H. B. (2008). Mobilizing the community to help students succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Price, W. J. (2001). Policy governance revisited. School Administrator, 58(2), 46-48,50.
Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice,
45(2), 125-132.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
Quon, P. (2006, January/February). Adequate funding: A matter of political will. Leadership, 55(3), 11.
Ragland, M. A., Asera, R. & Johnson, J. F. Jr. (1999). Urgency, responsibility, and efficacy: Preliminary findings of a
study of high-performing Texas school districts. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center. Web site: http://www.
starcenter.org/services/main.htm#product
Rapp, D. (2002). Social justice and the importance of rebellious imaginations. Journal of School Leadership, 12,
226–245.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press..
Razik, T. & Swanson, A. (2010) Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and management. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Razik, T., & Swanson, A. (2001). Fundamental descriptors of practice listed below of educational leadership. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Reale-Foley, L. B. (2003). How New England graduate programs in school administration are preparing aspiring
school administrators to become technology leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut.
Rebore, R. (1979). Public Law 94-142 and the building principal. NASSP Bulletin, 63(4), 26-30.
Reed, R. J. (1978). Education and ethnicity. In D. A. Erickson and T. L. Reller (Eds.), The principal in metropolitan
schools (pp. 130-155). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Reeves, P. (2009). Permeating the culture of a state association. School Administrator, 66(6), 34-35.
Reid, P. G., Reid, R. & Peterson, N. A. (2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school
context; valuing the role of social support. Education and Urban Society, 57(3), 257-275.
Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior American Educational Research Journal,
31(2), 283-307.
Resnick, L., & Glennan, T. K. (2003). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In A. M.
Hightower, M. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal.
Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational success in high-risk settings: Contributions of the Chicago Longitudinal Study.
Journal of School Psychology, 37, 345-354.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267-303.
Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution.
Riester, A. F., Pursch, V., & Skrla, L. (2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school success for children from
low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 281–304.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis
of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Roche, K. (1999). Moral and ethical dilemmas in Catholic school settings. In P. T Begley (Ed.) Values and
Educational Leadership (pp. 255–272). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Rodosky, R. J., & Munoz, M. A. (2009). Slaying myths, eliminating excuses: managing for accountability by putting
kids first. New Directions for Evaluation, 121, 43-54.
Rollow, S. G., & Bryk, A. S. (1993). Democratic politics and school improvement: The potential of Chicago school
reform. In C. Marshall (Ed.) The new politics of race and gender. The 1992 Yearbook of the Politics of
Education Association (pp. 97-106). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative,
empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational
Research, 70(1), 55-81.
71
Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93(2), 352-389.
Rusch, E. A. (1998). Leadership in evolving democratic school communities. Journal of School Leadership, 5(3), 214-250.
Russo, C. J., & Osborne, A.G. Jr. (2008). Essential concepts and school-based cases in special education.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their
effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, D., & Martin, A. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents in the school systems. School
Psychology Review, 29(2), 207-216.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Salisbury, C. L. (2006). Principals’ perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 70-82.
Salisbury, C. L., & McGregor, G. (2002). The administrative climate and context of inclusive elementary schools.
Exceptional Children, 68, 259-281.
Samier, E. (2011). Exploring aesthetic dimensions of leadership. In F. English (Ed.) Sage handbook of educational
leadership, 2nd Ed. (pp. 277-) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership
programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19-34.
Sanders, M. G. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home-school gap. The Journal of Educational
Research, 101(5), 287-298.
Sanders, M. G. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based
organization support and sustain school, family and community partnerships. Teachers College Record,
111(7), 1693-1712.
Sanders, M. G. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based
organization support and sustain school, family and community partnerships. Teachers College Record,
111(7), 1693-1712.
Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000). The National Network of Partnership Schools: How research influences
educational practice. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1/2), 61-76.
Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000). The national Network of Partnership Schools: How research influences
educational practice. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1/2), 61-76.
Sanders, M., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for schoolcommunity collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345-1368.
72
Sather, S. E. (1999, April). Leading, lauding and learning: Leadership in diverse secondary schools. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by low-SES
children of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education, 33, 451–491.
Scheurich, J. J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence, creating high-achievement classrooms,
schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schlechty, P. C. (1988). Leading cultural change: The CMS case. In A. Leiberman (Ed.). Building a professional
culture in schools (pp. 185-221). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schmidt, M. (2010). Educational trust. In E. Samier & M. Schmidt (Eds.) Trust and betrayal in educational
administration and leadership (pp. 43-59). New York: Routledge.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor - The challenge of leading 21st-century
schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203.
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A
study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.
Searby, L., & Williams, C. (2007). How to survive the politics of school administration. AASA Journal of Scholarship
& Practice, 4(3), 11-19.
Seyfarth, (2008). Human resource leadership. Boston: Pearson, Allyn, Bacon.
Shakeshaft, C. (1993). Gender equity in schools. In C. A. Capper (Ed.). Educational administration in a pluralistic
society ( pp. 86-109). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts. Themes from research. Olympia,
WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Shapiro, J. P. & Stefkovich, J. A. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical
perspectives to complex dilemmas, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates
Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2008). Ethical leadership in turbulent times: (Re) Solving moral dilemmas. New York,
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent
involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 171-187.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and
community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4-26.
Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and
relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 125-148.
Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., & Galindo, C. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership climate to improve
math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 27-48.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40, 111–134.
Shields, C. M. (2005). School leadership in the 21st century: Broadening the base. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel
(Eds.) Education leadership and reform: A volume in research and theory in educational administration (pp.
29-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational
Shields, C. M., Larocque, L. J., & Oberg, S. L. (2002). A dialogue about race and ethnicity in education: Struggling
to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 116–137.
Sickler, J. L. (1988). Teachers in charge: Empowering the professionals. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 254-256, 375-376.
Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educational
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organizations: Effects on teacher leadership and student
outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 443-466.
Sipple, J., & Killeen, K. (2004). Context, capacity, and concern: A district-level analysis of the implementation of
standards-based reform in New York State. Educational Policy, 18, 456-490.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing
equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 135-163.
Slosson, J. (2000). Taming the budget process. Principal Leadership 1(3):54-57.
Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
73
Smith, B. G. (1999). School principal programs and assessment literacy: A process of evolution. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,Washington.
Smith, J., & Blase, J. (1991). From empiricism to hermeneutics: Educational leadership as a practical and moral
activity. Journal of Educational Administration. 29(1), 6-21.
Smith, R. E. (2009). Human resources administration: A school-based perspective, 4th ed. Larchmont, NY: Eye
on Education.
Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogal, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the intersection of family and school.
Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75-100.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems
improve student achievement. New York: MDRC, Inc.
Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for excellence and equity. In A. M.
Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing
school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
Sommerville, D., & McDonald, S. (2002). Developing school and community partnerships to meet the needs of
students with challenging behaviors (Case/Ccbd Mini-Library Series on Safe, Drug-Free, and Effective
Schools). Arlington, VA: Council Exceptional Children.
Sosik, J. J., Lee, D., & Bouquillon, E. A. (2005). Context and mentoring: Examining formal and informal
relationships in high tech firms and k-12 schools. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 94.
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for results: Transforming teaching, learning and relationships in schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CA: Corwin Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building
instructional capacity. In J. Murphy (Ed.) The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the
21st century (pp. 83-104). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s
capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed
perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
74
Spring, J. H. (2005). Political agendas for education: From the religious right to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Forest, M. (Eds.). (1989). Educating all students in the mainstream of regular
education. Baltimore: Brookes.
Stedman, L. C. (1985). A new look at the effective school literature. Urban Education, 20, 295-326.
Stefkovich, J. A. (2006). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases in education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). The district as a professional learning laboratory. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A.
Marsh & M. W. Mclaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Steinberg, L. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63(5), 1266-1281.
Stöcklin, S. (2010). The initial stage of a school’s capacity building. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 38(4), 443-453.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities. New York: Open University Press.
Straut, D., & Calabrese, R. L. (1999). Reconstructing the internship. Journal of School Leadership, 9(5), 400-421.
Strayer, G. D. (1944). Professional preparation--Past and future: the education of the superintendent of schools.
Teachers College Record, 46(3), 169-176.
Strike, K. A. (1993). Professionalism, democracy, and discursive communities: Normative reflections on
restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 255-275.
Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S. M., & Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural,
multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3(3), 326.
Stringfield, S., Reynolds, D., & Schaffer, E. C. (2008). Improving secondary students’ academic achievement
through a focus on reform reliability: 4- and 9-year findings from the High Reliability Schools Project.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), 409-428.
Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational
Sweetland, S., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational
model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729.
Talbert, J. E. (1996). Primacy and promise of professional development in the nation’s education reform agenda:
Sociological views. In K. Borman, P. Cookson, A. Sadovnik, & J. Spade (Eds.), Implementing educational reform:
Sociological perspectives on educational policy (pp. 283-311). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Taylor D. L. (2009). The role of teacher leadership in improving student learning outcomes in schools. In M. S.
Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.). Transformative leadership and educational excellence. Rotterdam: Sense.
Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (2004). Research on learning to read – at school, at home, and in the community.
The Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 167-182.
Taylor, D. L. (2009). The role of teacher leadership in improving student learning outcomes in schools. In M. S.
Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.). Transformative leadership and educational excellence. Rotterdam: Sense.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221–251.
Theoharis, G. (2008a). “At every turn”: The resistance public school principals face in their pursuit of equity and
justice. Journal of School Leadership, 18, 303–343.
Theoharis, G. (2008b). Woven in deeply: Identity and leadership of urban social justice principals. Education and
Urban Society, 41, 3–25.
Theoharis, G. (2010). Disrupting injustice: Principals narrate the strategies they use to improve their schools and
advance social justice. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 331-373.
Theoharris, G. (2001). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
Tillman, L. C. (2004). African American principals and the legacy of Brown. Review of Research in Education, 28,
101-146. (2004)
Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). The micropolitics of accountability: The case of staff appraisal.
Educational Policy, 12(1-2), 162-176.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction
and achievement in all schools. Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance.
Theoharis, G. (2009). The leadership our children deserve: Seven keys to equity, social justice, and school reform.
75
Tooms, A. (2004, Spring). Developing leadership strategies inside the politics of language, diversity, and change.
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 7(1).
Tooms, A. K., Lugg, C. A., & Bogotch, I. (2010). Rethinking the politics of fit and educational leadership.
Torrence, V. D. (2002). Principals’ use of data: A national perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksberg, Virginia.
Torres, M. S., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2009). Demographics and police involvement implications for student civil
liberties and just leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 450-473.
Trivette, P. S., & Thompson-Drew, C. (2003). Implementing a school-based health center: The Winston-Salem/
Forsyth County Experience. Psychology in the Schools, 40(3), 289-296.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). Transformational leadership and trust. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in
leading and organizing schools (pp. 157-179). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009) Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and
trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of
educational administration, 36(4), 334-352.
Tucker, C. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the academic
needs of low-income African American children. American Psychologist, 57, 762-73.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership: How leaders build the business and
improve the bottom line. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Van Horn, G., Burrello, L., & DeClue, L. (1992). An instructional leadership framework: The principal’s leadership
role in special education. Special Education Leadership Review, 1(1), 41–54.
Van Houten, L. (2003). Using data for decision-making. WestEd R&D Alert, 8 (1)
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
Wagstaff, L. H., & Gallagher, K. S. (1990). Schools, families, and communities: Idealized images and new realities.
In B. Mitchell & L. L. Cunningham (Eds.), Educational leadership and changing contexts of families,
communities, and schools (pp. 91-117). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K.S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Walker, A., & Chen Shuangye, C. (2007). Leader authenticity in intercultural school contexts. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 185-204.
76
Walker, E. W. (1999). Conflict in the house: Interethnic conflict as change agent, change as conflict instigator. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Wallace Foundation. (2007a). A bridge to school reform. New York, NY: Author.
Wallace Foundation. (2007b). A Wallace perspective: Getting principal mentoring right: Lessons from the field.
New York City: Wallace Foundation.
Wallace Foundation. (2007b). A Wallace perspective: Getting principal mentoring right: Lessons from the field.
New York City: Wallace Foundation.
Wallace, R. C. (1994). Linking practice and the preparation of school administrators. In T. A. Mulkeen, N. H.
Cambron-McCabe & B. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democratic leadership: The changing context of administrative
preparation (pp. 189-200). Oxford: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Warren, M. R. (2008). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 75(2), 133-173.
Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational
approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209-2254.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent
leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
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: McREL.
Watts, M. J., Campell, H. E., Gau, H., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., & Hess, R. K. (2006). Why some schools with Latino
children beat the odds and others don’t. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Data use for school improvement: School practices and research
perspectives. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 463-468.
Weber, M. J. (2006). A study of computer technology use and technology leadership of Texas elementary public
school principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.
Webster, W. G. (1994). Learner-centered principalship: The principal as teacher of teachers. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Wegenke, G. (2000). Principal’s role in school restructuring in the Des Moines public schools. Education and
Urban Society, 32 (4), 519-534.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. London, England: Springer-Verlag.
Wendel, F. C., & Bryant, M. T. (1988). New directions for administrator preparation. Tempe, AZ: The University
Council for Educational Administration.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Finance equalization and within-school equity: The relationship between education
spending and the social distribution of achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4),
269-283.
West Ed (2003). Moving leadership standards into every day work: Descriptions of practice. San Francisco: West Ed
White-Smith, K. A., & White, M. A. (2009). High school reform implementation principals’ perceptions on their
leadership role. Urban Education, 44(3), 259-279.
Wildy, H., & Dimmock, C. (1993). Instructional leadership in primary and secondary schools in Western Australia.
Journal of Educational Administration, 31(2), 43.
Wimpelberg, R. K., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective
schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(7), 82-107.
Winfield, L. F., Johnson, R., & Manning, J. B. (1993). Managing instructional diversity. In P. B. Forsyth & M. Tallerico
(Eds.), City schools: Leading the way (pp. 97-130). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Witt, J. F., & Walsh, D. J. (1990). A systematic test of the effective schools model. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis 12, 188-212.
Wraga, W. (2006). Theories of curriculum. In F. English (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and
Administration, Vol. 1, (pp. 251-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Xu, M., Kushner Benson, S. N., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Steiner, R. P. (2010). The relationship between parental
involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: A path analysis using the
ECLS-K database. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 2347-269.
Ylimaki, R. M. (2006). Toward a new conceptualization of vision in the work of educational leaders: Cases of the
visionary archetype. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 620-651.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, D. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of
scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’ experiences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101.
Woods, P. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. London: Paul Chapman.
77
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643.
Zirkel, P. (1997). The “explosion” in education litigation: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 114(2), 341-351.
Zirkel, P., & Clark, J. (2008). School negligence case law trends. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 32, 345-363.
Zirkel, P., & D’Angelo, A. (2002). Special education case law: An empirical trends analysis. West’s Education Law
Reporter, 161(2), 731-753.
Zirkel, P., & Gischlar, K. (2008). Due process hearings under the IDEA: A longitudinal frequency analysis. Journal
of Special Education Leadership, 21(1), 22-31.
Zoeller, M. F. (2002). Leadership practices and technology competencies critical to an effective superintendent
preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Commerce, Texas.
78
Appendix B
The Council of Chief State School Officers
InTASC 2011/ Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education Leaders/ISLLC 2008
Standards Crosswalk
May 2011
InTASC Standards 2011
Performance Expectations and
Indicators for Education Leaders
ISLLC 2008
Standard # 1: Learner
Development.
The teacher understands how
learners grow and develop,
recognizing that patterns of
learning and development vary
individually within and across
the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, and physical areas,
and designs and implements
developmentally appropriate and
challenging learning experiences.
1. Performances:
1C1 Uses or develops data systems
and other sources of information (e.g.,
test scores, teacher reports, student
work samples) to identify unique
strengths and needs of students, gaps
between current outcomes and goals,
and areas for improvement.
1(b) The teacher creates
developmentally appropriate
instruction that takes into account
individual learners’ strengths,
interests, and needs and that
enable each learner to advance and
accelerate his/her learning.
2B3 Provides and monitors effects
of differentiated teaching strategies,
curricular materials, educational
technologies, and other resources
appropriate to address diverse
student populations, including
students with disabilities, cultural
and linguistic differences, gifted
and talented, disadvantaged social
economic backgrounds, or other
factors affecting learning.
2E Develop assessment and
accountability systems to monitor
student progress.
2B1: Develops shared understanding
of rigorous curriculum and standardsbased instructional programs,
working with teams to analyze student
work, monitor student progress, and
redesign curricular and instructional
programs to meet diverse needs.
2C Create a personalized and
motivating learning environment
for students
1(a) The teacher regularly assesses
individual and group performance
in order to design and modify
instruction to meet learners’ needs in
each area of development (cognitive,
linguistic, social, emotional, and
physical) and scaffolds the next level
of development.
79
1(c) The teacher collaborates with
families, communities, colleagues,
and other professionals to promote
learner growth and development.
4A1 Brings together the resources
of schools, family members, and
community to positively affect
student and adult learning, including
parents and others who provide care
for children.
4C Build and sustain positive
relationships with families and
caregivers
1(d) The teacher understands how
learning occurs–how learners
construct knowledge, acquire skills,
and develop disciplined thinking
processes –and knows how to use
instructional strategies that promote
student learning.
2B4 Identifies and uses high-quality
research and data-based strategies
and practices that are appropriate in
the local context to increase learning
for every student.
2B Create a comprehensive, rigorous,
and coherent curricular program
1(e) The teacher understands that
each learner’s cognitive, linguistic,
social, emotional, and physical
development influences learning
and knows how to make instructional
decisions that build on learners’
strengths and needs.
for students
4D Build and sustain productive
relationships with community partners
1. Essential Knowledge
for every student.
1(f) The teacher identifies readiness
for learning, and understands how
development in any one area may
affect performance in others.
2C2 Uses varied sources and kinds
of information and assessments
(such as test scores, work samples,
and teacher judgment) to evaluate
student learning, effective teaching,
and program quality.
for students
1(g) The teacher understands the role
of language and culture in learning
and knows how to modify instruction
to make language comprehensible
and instruction relevant, accessible,
and challenging.
2A2 Guides and supports jobembedded, standards-based
professional development that
improves teaching and learning and
meets diverse learning needs of
every student.
for students
1(h) The teacher respects learners’
differing strengths and needs
and is committed to using this
information to further each
learner’s development.
2. Diversity as an asset
N/A
1(i) The teacher is committed
to using learners’ strengths as
a basis for growth, and their
misconceptions as opportunities
for learning.
1. Examining assumptions and beliefs
N/A
1(j) The teacher takes
responsibility for promoting
learners’ growth and
development.
1. Continuous improvement using
evidence
1. Critical Dispositions
80
4. Continuously learning and
improvement for all
N/A
1(k) The teacher values the input
and contributions of families,
colleagues and other professionals in
understanding and supporting each
learner’s development.
3. Collaboration with all stakeholders
N/A
4. Including family and community
as partners
Standard # 2: Learning Differences.
The teacher uses understanding of
individual differences and diverse
cultures and communities to ensure
inclusive learning environments
that enable each learner to meet
high standards.
2. Performances:
2(a) The teacher designs, adapts, and
delivers instruction to address each
student’s diverse learning strengths
and needs and creates opportunities
for students to demonstrate their
learning in different ways.
2B1 Develops shared understanding
of rigorous curriculum and
standards-based instructional
programs, working with teams
to analyze student work, monitor
student progress, and redesign
curricular and instructional programs
to meet diverse needs.
for students
2(b) The teacher makes appropriate
and timely provisions (e.g., pacing
for individual rates of growth,
task demands, communication,
assessment, and response modes)
for individual learners with particular
learning differences or needs.
5E Promote social justice and ensure
that individual student needs inform
all aspects of schooling
2G Maximize time spent on quality
instruction
(such as test scores, work, samples,
every student.
for students
2(d) The teacher brings multiple
perspectives to the discussion
of content, including attention
to learners’ personal, family,
and community experiences and
cultural norms.
1A3 Incorporates diverse perspectives
and crafts consensus about vision,
mission, and goals that are high and
achievable for every student when
provided with appropriate, effective
learning opportunities.
4B Promote understanding,
appreciation, and use of the
community’s diverse cultural, social,
and intellectual resources
4B5 Demonstrates cultural
competence in sharing
responsibilities with communities to
improve teaching and learning.
2(c) The teacher designs instruction
to build on learners’ prior knowledge
and experiences, allowing learners to
accelerate as they demonstrate their
understandings.
81
2(e) The teacher incorporates tools of
language development into planning
and instruction, including strategies
for making content accessible to
English language learners and for
evaluating and supporting their
development of English proficiency.
2(f) The teacher accesses resources,
supports, and specialized assistance
and services to meet particular
learning differences or needs.
for students
for students
3B Obtain, allocate, align, and
efficiently utilize human, fiscal, and
technological resources
3B5 Assigns personnel to address
diverse student needs, legal
requirements, and equity goals.
2. Essential Knowledge:
82
2(g) The teacher understands and
identifies differences in approaches
to learning and performance and
knows how to design instruction
that uses each learner’s strengths to
promote growth.
for students
2(h) The teacher understands
students with exceptional needs,
including those associated with
disabilities and giftedness, and
knows how to use strategies and
resources to serve these needs.
for students
2(i) The teacher knows about second
language acquisition processes
and knows how to incorporate
instructional strategies and resources
to support language acquisition.
for students
for every student.
2(j) The teacher understands that
learners bring assets for learning
based on their individual experiences,
abilities, talents, prior learning, and
peer and social group interactions, as
well as language, culture, family, and
community values.
for students
2(k) The teacher knows how to access
information about the values of
diverse cultures and communities
and how to incorporate learners’
experiences, cultures, and community
resources into instruction.
for students
4B2 Uses appropriate assessment
strategies and research methods
to understand and accommodate
diverse student and community
conditions and dynamics.
2. Critical Dispositions:
1. Every student learning
N/A
1. High expectations for all
2. Student learning
4. Continuous learning and
improvement for all
2(m) The teacher respects learners
as individuals with differing personal
and family backgrounds and various
skills, abilities, perspectives, talents,
and interests.
4. Respect for the diversity of
family composition
6. Build on diverse social and
cultural assets
N/A
2(l) The teacher believes that all
students can achieve at high levels
and persists in helping each student
reach his/her full potential.
83
2(n) The teacher makes learners feel
valued and helps them learn to value
each other.
2(o) The teacher values diverse
languages and dialects and seeks
to integrate them into his/her
instructional practice to engage
students in learning.
N/A
3. A safe and supportive learning
environment
N/A
2. Student learning
5. Continuously improving
knowledge and skills
6. Eliminate barriers to achievement
cultural assets
Standard # 3: Learning
Environments.
The teacher works with others
to create environments
that support individual and
collaborative learning, and
that encourage positive social
interaction, active engagement in
learning, and self motivation.
3. Performances:
3(a) The teacher collaborates with
learners, families, and colleagues
to build a safe, positive learning
climate of openness, mutual respect,
support, and inquiry.
2A3 Models openness to change and
collaboration that improves practices
and student outcomes.
2A4 Develops time and resources
to build a professional culture
of openness and collaboration,
engaging teachers in sharing
information, analyzing outcomes, and
planning improvement.
2A Create a comprehensive, rigorous,
caregivers
2A5 Provides support, time, and
resources for leaders and staff to
examine their own beliefs, values,
and practices in relation to the vision
and goals for teaching and learning.
4A2 Involves families in decision making
about their children’s education.
84
3(b) The teacher develops learning
experiences that engage learners
in collaborative and self directed
learning and that extend learner
interaction with ideas and people
locally and globally.
2A1 Develops shared understanding,
capacities, and commitment to high
expectations for all students and
closing achievement gaps.
2A Nurture and sustain a culture of
collaboration, trust, learning, and
high expectations
5C Safeguard the values of
democracy, equity, and diversity
learners and colleagues to develop
shared values and expectations for
respectful interactions, rigorous
academic discussions, and
individual and group responsibility
for quality work.
1A1 Uses varied sources of
information and analyzes data about
current practices and outcomes to
shape a vision, mission, and goals
with high, measurable expectations
for all students and educators.
3(d) The teacher manages the
learning environment to actively
and equitably engage learners
by organizing, allocating, and
coordinating the resources of time,
space, and learners’ attention.
3B3 Aligns resources (such as time,
people, space, and money) to
achieve the vision and goals.
3(e) The teacher uses a variety of
methods to engage learners in
evaluating the learning environment
and collaborates with learners to
make appropriate adjustments.
2C1 Develops and appropriately
uses aligned, standards-based
accountability data to improve the
quality of teaching and learning.
3(f) The teacher communicates
verbally and nonverbally in ways
that demonstrate respect for and
responsiveness to the cultural
backgrounds and differing
perspectives learners bring to the
learning environment.
high expectations
for students
4A3 Uses effective public information
strategies to communicate with families
and community members (such as
email, night meetings, and written
materials in multiple languages).
5B2Models respect for diverse
community stakeholders and treats
them equitably.
5B3 Demonstrates respect for diversity
by developing cultural competency
skills and equitable practices.
3A4 Oversees acquisition and
maintenance of equipment and
effective technologies, particularly to
support teaching and learning.
2G Maximize time spent on quality
instruction
student progress
2I Monitor and evaluate the impact
of the instructional program
5A Ensure a system of accountability
for every student’s academic and
social success
5B Model principles of selfawareness, reflective practice,
transparency, and ethical behavior
caregivers
2H Promote the use of the
most effective and appropriate
technologies to support teaching
and learning
5B6 Respectfully challenges and
works to change assumptions
and beliefs that negatively affect
students, educational environments,
and every student learning.
3(g) The teacher promotes responsible
learner use of interactive technologies
to extend the possibilities for learning
locally and globally.
1A Collaboratively develop and
implement a shared vision and mission
85
3(h) The teacher intentionally builds
learner capacity to collaborate in
face-to-face and virtual environments
through applying effective
interpersonal communication skills.
3(i) The teacher understands the
relationship between motivation
and engagement and knows how to
design learning experiences using
strategies that build learner self
direction and ownership of learning.
N/A
N/A
3(j) The teacher knows how to help
learners work productively and
cooperatively with each other to
achieve learning goals.
high expectations.
3(k) The teacher knows how
to collaborate with learners to
establish and monitor elements
of a safe and productive learning
environment including norms,
expectations, routines, and
organizational structures.
3C2 Involves parents, teachers,
and students in developing,
implementing, and monitoring
guidelines and norms for
accountable behavior.
high expectations.
3(l) The teacher understands
how learner diversity can affect
communication and knows how
to communicate effectively in
differing environments.
4A3 Uses effective public
information strategies to
communicate with families and
community members (such as
email, night meetings, and written
materials in multiple languages).
3(m) The teacher knows how to
use technologies and how to
guide learners to apply them in
appropriate, safe, and effective ways.
1C6 Obtains and aligns resources
(such as learning technologies, staff,
time, funding, materials, training, and
so on) to achieve the vision, mission,
and goals.
and learning
3(n)) The teacher is committed to
working with learners, colleagues,
families, and communities to
establish positive and supportive
learning environments.
N/A
3(o) The teacher values the role
of learners in promoting each
other’s learning and recognizes the
importance of peer relationships in
establishing a climate of learning.
5. Modeling high expectations
and learning.
3. Essential Knowledge
3C Promote and protect the welfare
and safety of students and staff
3E Ensure teacher and organizational
time is focused to support quality
instruction and student learning
86
2. Student learning
environment
6. Eliminating barriers to
achievement
N/A
3(p) The teacher is committed
to supporting learners as they
participate in decision-making,
engage in exploration and
invention, work collaboratively
and independently, and engage in
purposeful learning.
3(q) The teacher seeks to foster
respectful communication among all
members of the learning community.
N/A
evidence
N/A
improvement for all
cultural assets
3(r) The teacher is a thoughtful and
responsive listener and observer.
improvement for all
N/A
4(a) The teacher effectively uses
multiple representations and
explanations that capture key ideas
in the discipline, guide learners
through learning progressions, and
promote each learner’s achievement
of content standards.
N/A
N/A
4(b) The teacher engages students
in learning experiences in the
discipline that encourage learners to
understand, question, and analyze
ideas from diverse perspectives so
that they master the content.
4(c) The teacher engages learners
in applying methods of inquiry
and standards of evidence used in
the discipline.
for students
4(d) The teacher stimulates
learner reflection on prior content
knowledge, links new concepts
to familiar concepts, and makes
connections to learners’ experiences.
N/A
N/A
4(e) The teacher recognizes learner
misconceptions in a discipline that
interfere with learning, and creates
experiences to build accurate
conceptual understanding.
N/A
N/A
Standard # 4: Content Knowledge.
The teacher understands the
central concepts, tools of inquiry,
and structures of the discipline(s) he
or she teaches and creates learning
experiences that make these
aspects of the discipline accessible
and meaningful for learners to
assure mastery of the content.
4. Performances:
for students
87
4(f) The teacher evaluates and
modifies instructional resources
and curriculum materials for their
comprehensiveness, accuracy for
representing particular concepts in
the discipline, and appropriateness
for his/her learners.
4(g) The teacher uses supplementary
resources and technologies
effectively to ensure accessibility and
relevance for all learners.
4(h) The teacher creates
opportunities for students to learn,
practice, and master academic
language in their content.
N/A
N/A
4(i) The teacher accesses school
and/or district-based resources
to evaluate the learner’s content
knowledge in their primary language.
student progress
4A Collect and analyze data
and information pertinent to the
educational environment
4(j) The teacher understands major
concepts, assumptions, debates,
processes of inquiry, and ways of
knowing that are central to the
discipline(s) s/he teaches.
88
2B2 Provides coherent, effective
guidance of rigorous curriculum
and instruction, aligning content
standards, curriculum, teaching,
assessments, professional
development, assessments, and
evaluation methods.
4(k) The teacher understands
common misconceptions in
learning the discipline and how
to guide learners to accurate
N/A
N/A
4(l) The teacher knows and uses
the academic language of the
discipline and knows how to make it
accessible to learners.
evaluation methods.
4(m) The teacher knows how
to integrate culturally relevant
content to build on learners’
background knowledge.
4(n) The teacher has a deep
knowledge of student content
standards and learning progressions
in the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
high expectations
every student.
evaluation methods.
4(o) The teacher realizes that content
knowledge is not a fixed body of
facts but is complex, culturally
situated, and ever evolving. S/he
keeps abreast of new ideas and
understandings in the field.
2. Continuous professional growth
and development
2. Lifelong learning
N/A
89
4(p) The teacher appreciates multiple
perspectives within the discipline
and facilitates learners’ critical
analysis of these perspectives.
4(q) The teacher recognizes
the potential of bias in his/her
representation of the discipline
and seeks to appropriately address
problems of bias.
4(r) The teacher is committed to work
toward each learner’s mastery of
disciplinary content and skills.
N/A
cultural assets
N/A
6. Eliminate barriers to achievement
2. Student learning
Standard # 5: Application of Content.
The teacher understands how to
connect concepts and use differing
perspectives to engage learners
in critical thinking, creativity, and
collaborative problem solving
related to authentic local and
global issues.
5. Performances:
90
5(a) The teacher develops and
implements projects that guide
learners in analyzing the complexities
of an issue or question using
perspectives from varied disciplines
and cross disciplinary skills (e.g., a
water quality study that draws upon
biology and chemistry to look at
factual information and social studies
to examine policy implications).
N/A
N/A
5(b) The teacher engages learners
in applying content knowledge to
real world problems through the
lens of interdisciplinary themes
(e.g., environmental literacy,
financial literacy).
for students
and learning
evaluation methods.
5(c) The teacher facilitates learners’
use of current tools and resources
to maximize content learning in
varied contexts.
and learning
5(d) The teacher engages learners in
the questioning and challenging of
assumptions and approaches in order
to foster innovation and problem
solving in local and global contexts.
N/A
N/A
5(e) The teacher develops learners’
communication skills in disciplinary
and interdisciplinary contexts by
creating meaningful opportunities
to employ a variety of forms of
communication that address varied
audiences and purposes.
evaluation methods.
5(f) The teacher engages learners
in generating and evaluating new
ideas and novel approaches, seeking
inventive solutions to problems, and
developing original work.
5(g) The teacher facilitates learners’
ability to develop diverse social and
cultural perspectives that expand their
understanding of local and global
issues and create novel inclusive
approaches to solving problems.
4B4 Capitalizes on diversity (such as
cultural, ethnic, racial, economic, and
special interest groups) as an asset of
the school community to strengthen
educational programs.
evaluation methods.
91
5(h) The teacher develops and
implements supports for learner literacy
development across content areas.
evaluation methods.
5(i) The teacher understands the
ways of knowing in his/her discipline,
how it relates to other disciplinary
approaches to inquiry, and the
strengths and limitations of each
approach in addressing problems,
issues and concerns.
evaluation methods.
5(j) The teacher understands how
current interdisciplinary themes
(e.g., civic literacy, health literacy,
global awareness) connect to the
core subjects and knows how to
weave those themes into meaningful
learning experiences.
92
evaluation methods.
5(k) The teacher understands the
demands of accessing and managing
information as well as how to
evaluate issues of ethics and quality
related to information and its use.
5A1 Models personal and professional
ethics, integrity, justice, and fairness
and expects the same of others.
and learning
5(m) The teacher understands
critical thinking processes and how
to help learners develop high level
questioning skills to promote their
independent learning.
for every student.
5(n) The teacher understands
communication modes and skills as
vehicles for learning (e.g., information
gathering and processing) across
disciplines as well as vehicles for
expressing learning.
for every student.
5(o) The teacher understands
creative thinking processes and how
to engage learners in producing
original work.
for every student.
5(p) The teacher knows where
and how to access resources
to build global awareness and
understanding, and how to integrate
them into the curriculum.
for students
2. Learning as the fundamental
purpose of school
N/A
5, Critical Dispositions:
5(q) The teacher is constantly
exploring how to use disciplinary
knowledge as a lens to address local
and global issues.
5(l) The teacher understands how
to use digital and interactive
technologies for efficiently and
effectively achieving specific
learning goals.
93
5(r) The teacher values knowledge
outside his/her own discipline and
how such knowledge enhances
student learning.
N/A
5(s) The teacher values flexible
learning environments that
encourage learner exploration,
discovery, and expression across
content areas.
environment
N/A
for students
Standard # 6: Assessment.
The teacher understands and uses
multiple methods of assessment
to engage learners in their own
growth, to monitor learner progress,
and to guide the teacher’s and
learner’s decision making.
6. Performances:
6(a) The teacher balances the use of
formative and summative assessment
as appropriate to support, verify, and
document learning.
94
6(b) The teacher designs
assessments that match learning
objectives with assessment methods
and minimize sources of bias that can
distort assessment results.
6(c) The teacher works independently
and collaboratively to examine test
and other performance data to
understand each learners’ progress
and to guide planning.
2C3 Guides regular analyses and
disaggregation of data about all
students to improve instructional
programs.
student progress
student progress
4B2 Uses appropriate assessment
strategies and research methods
to understand and accommodate
diverse student and community
conditions and dynamics.
5A1 Models personal and
professional ethics, integrity, justice,
and fairness and expects the same
of others.
5A Ensure a system of accountability
for every student’s academic and
social success
6(d) The teacher engages learners in
understanding and identifying quality
work and provides them with effective
descriptive feedback to guide their
progress toward that work.
student learning, effective
teaching, and program quality.
for students
5B1 Demonstrates respect for the
inherent dignity and worth of each
individual.
6(e) The teacher engages learners
in multiple ways of demonstrating
knowledge and skill as part of the
assessment process.
2C2 Uses varied sources and
kinds of information and
assessments (such as test scores,
work samples, and teacher
judgment) to evaluate student
learning, effective teaching, and
program quality.
student progress
6(f) The teacher models and
structures processes that guide
learners in examining their own
thinking and learning as well as the
performance of others.
student progress
programs.
6(g) The teacher effectively uses
multiple and appropriate types of
assessment data to identify each
student’s learning needs and to
develop differentiated learning
experiences.
6(h) The teacher prepares all
learners for the demands of
particular assessment formats
and makes appropriate
accommodations in assessments
or testing conditions, especially
for learners with disabilities and
language learning needs.
for students
6(i) The teacher continually seeks
appropriate ways to employ
technology to support assessment
practice both to engage learners
more fully and to assess and
address learner needs.
2C4 Uses effective data-based
technologies and performance
management systems to monitor
and analyze assessment results for
accountability reporting and to
guide continuous improvement.
and learning
4A2 Involves families in decision
making about their children’s
education.
95
6(j) The teacher understands the
difference between formative
and summative applications of
assessment and knows how and
when to use each.
programs.
student progress
6(k) The teacher understands
the range of types and multiple
purposes of assessment and how to
design, adapt or select appropriate
assessments to address specific
learning goals and individual
differences, and to minimize
sources of bias.
student progress
6(l) The teacher knows how to
analyze assessment data to
understand patterns and gaps
in learning, to guide planning
and instruction, and to provide
meaningful feedback to all learners.
6(m) The teacher knows when
and how to engage learners in
analyzing their own assessment
results and in helping to get goals
for their own learning.
student progress
6(n) The teacher understands
the positive impact of effective
descriptive feedback for learners
and knows a variety of strategies for
communicating this feedback.
2C5 Interprets data and
communicates progress toward
vision, mission, and goals for
educators, the school community,
and other stakeholders.
6(o) The teacher knows when and
how to evaluate and report learner
progress against standards.
student progress
programs.
96
6(p) The teacher understands how
to prepare learners for assessments
and how to make accommodations
in assessments and testing
conditions, especially for learners
with disabilities and language
learning needs.
student progress
evidence
N/A
6(q) The teacher is committed
to engaging learners actively in
assessment processes and to
developing each learner’s capacity to
review and communicate about their
own progress and learning.
purpose of school
6(r) The teacher takes responsibility
for aligning instruction and
assessment with learning goals.
N/A
6(s) The teacher is committed to
providing timely and effective
descriptive feedback to learners on
their progress.
evidence
N/A
6(t) The teacher is committed to
using multiple types of assessment
processes to support, verify, and
document learning.
N/A
6(u) The teacher is committed
to making accommodations in
assessments and testing conditions,
especially for learners with disabilities
and language learning needs.
N/A
6(v) The teacher is committed to the
ethical use of various assessments
and assessment data to identify
learner strengths and needs to
promote student growth.
1. Ethical principles in all
relationships and decisions
N/A
Standard #7: Planning for
Instruction.
The teacher plans instruction that
supports every student in meeting
rigorous learning goals by drawing
upon knowledge of content areas,
curriculum, cross-disciplinary
skills, and pedagogy, as well as
knowledge of learners and the
community context.
7. Performances:
7(a) The teacher individually and
collaboratively selects and creates
learning experiences that are
appropriate for curriculum goals and
content standards, and are relevant
to learners.
evaluation methods.
97
7(b) The teacher plans how to
achieve each student’s learning
goals, choosing appropriate
strategies and accommodations,
resources, and materials to
differentiate instruction for
individuals and groups of learners.
for students
evaluation methods.
98
7(c) The teacher develops
appropriate sequencing of learning
experiences and provides multiple
ways to demonstrate knowledge
and skill.
for students
7(d) The teacher plans for instruction
based on formative and summative
assessment data, prior learner
knowledge, and learner interest.
programs.
student progress
accountability reporting and to guide
continuous improvement.
7(e) The teacher plans collaboratively
with professionals who have
specialized expertise (e.g., special
educators, related service providers,
language learning specialists,
librarians, media specialists)
to design and jointly deliver as
appropriate learning experiences to
meet unique learning needs.
information.
1C Create and implement plans to
achieve goals
high expectations
for students
7(f) The teacher evaluates plans in
relation to short- and long-range
goals and systematically adjusts
plans to meet each student’s learning
needs and enhance learning.
1C7 Revises plans, programs, and
activities based on systematic
evidence and reviews of progress
toward the vision, mission, and goals.
achieve goals
1E Monitor and evaluate progress
and revise plans
programs.
7(g) The teacher understands content
and content standards and how these
are organized in the curriculum.
evaluation methods.
7(i) The teacher understands
learning theory, human
development, cultural diversity, and
individual differences and how these
impact ongoing planning.
for students
7(h) The teacher understands how
integrating cross- disciplinary skills
in instruction engages learners
purposefully in applying content
knowledge.
99
100
strengths and needs of individual
learners and how to plan instruction
that is responsive to these strengths
and needs.
for students
7(k) The teacher knows a range
of evidence-based instructional
strategies, resources, and
technological tools and how to use
them effectively to plan instruction
that meets diverse learning needs.
for every student.
and learning
7(l) The teacher knows when and how
to adjust plans based on assessment
information and learner responses.
for students
7(m) The teacher knows when
and how to access resources and
collaborate with others to support
student learning (e.g., special
educators, related service providers,
language learner specialists,
librarians, media specialists,
community organizations).
for every student.
for students
for children.
7(n) The teacher respects learners’
diverse strengths and needs and is
committed to using this information
to plan effective instruction.
N/A
7(o) The teacher values planning as
a collegial activity that takes into
consideration the input of learners,
colleagues, families, and the larger
community.
N/A
7(p) The teacher takes professional
responsibility to use short- and longterm planning as a means of assuring
student learning.
5. Taking responsibility for actions
N/A
6. Build on diverse social and cultural
assets
7(q) The teacher believes that plans
must always be open to adjustment
and revision based on learner needs
and changing circumstances.
evidence
N/A
achieve goals
Standard #8.: Instructional
Strategies.
The teacher understands and uses
a variety of instructional strategies
to encourage students to develop
deep understanding of content
areas and their connections, and to
build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
8. Performances:
8(a) The teacher uses appropriate
strategies and resources to
adapt instruction to the needs of
individuals and groups of learners.
and revise plans
student progress
learners to design and implement
relevant learning experiences,
identify their strengths, and access
family and community resources to
develop their areas of interest.
student progress
motivating environment for students
8(b) The teacher continuously
monitors student learning, engages
learners in assessing their progress,
and adjusts instruction in response to
student learning needs.
101
102
8(d) The teacher varies his/her
role in the instructional process
(e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach,
audience) in relation to the content
and purposes of instruction and the
needs of learners.
2B3 Provides and monitors
effects of differentiated teaching
strategies, curricular materials,
educational technologies, and
other resources appropriate
to address diverse student
populations, including students
with disabilities, cultural and
linguistic differences, gifted and
talented, disadvantaged social
for students
8(e) The teacher provides multiple
models and representations of
concepts and skills with opportunities
for learners to demonstrate their
knowledge through a variety of
products and performances.
for students
8(f) The teacher engages all learners in
developing higher order questioning
skills and metacognitive processes.
2B4 Identifies and uses highquality research and data-based
strategies and practices that are
appropriate in the local context to
increase learning for every student.
8(g) The teacher engages learners in
using a range of learning skills and
technology tools to access, interpret,
evaluate, and apply information.
accountability and reporting and to
guide continuous improvement.
and learning
8(h) The teacher uses a variety of
instructional strategies to support
and expand learners’ communication
through speaking, listening, reading,
writing, and other modes.
8(i) The teacher asks questions to
stimulate discussion that serves
different purposes (e.g., probing for
learner understanding, helping learners
articulate their ideas and thinking
processes, stimulating curiosity, and
helping learners to question).
2B1 Develops shared
understanding of rigorous
curriculum and standards-based
instructional programs, working
with teams to analyze student
work, monitor student progress,
and redesign curricular and
instructional programs to meet
diverse needs.
student progress
and learning
cognitive processes associated
with various kinds of learning
(e.g., critical and creative thinking,
problem framing and problem
solving, invention, memorization and
recall) and how these processes can
be stimulated.
for every student.
8(k) The teacher knows how to
apply a range of developmentally,
culturally, and linguistically
appropriate instructional strategies
to achieve learning goals.
8(l) The teacher knows when and
how to use appropriate strategies to
differentiate instruction and engage
all learners in complex thinking and
meaningful tasks.
for every student.
8(m) The teacher understands how
multiple forms of communication
(oral, written, nonverbal, digital,
visual) convey ideas, foster self
expression, and build relationships.
for every student.
8(n) The teacher knows how to use a
wide variety of resources, including
human and technological, to engage
students in learning.
for every student.
systems to monitor and analyze
assessment results for accountability
reporting and to guide continuous
improvement.
and learning
for every student.
systems to monitor and
analyze assessment results for
accountability reporting and to
guide continuous improvement
and learning
8(o) The teacher understands how
content and skill development can be
supported by media and technology
and knows how to evaluate these
resources for quality, accuracy, and
effectiveness.
103
8(p) The teacher is committed
to deepening awareness and
understanding the strengths and
needs of diverse learners when
planning and adjusting instruction.
N/A
8(q) The teacher values the variety
N/A
of ways people communicate and
encourages learners to develop and
use multiple forms of communication.
N/A
8(r) The teacher is committed to
exploring how the use of new and
emerging technologies can support
and promote student learning.
N/A
8(s) The teacher values flexibility and
reciprocity in the teaching process as
necessary for adapting instruction to
learner responses, ideas, and needs.
3. Equitable distribution of resources
N/A
evidence
Standard #9: Professional Learning
and Ethical Practice.
The teacher engages in ongoing
professional learning and uses
evidence to continually evaluate
his/her practice, particularly
the effects of his/her choices
and actions on others (learners,
families, other professionals,
and the community), and adapts
practice to meet the needs of
each learner.
9. Performances:
9(a) The teacher engages in ongoing
learning opportunities to develop
knowledge and skills in order to
provide all learners with engaging
curriculum and learning experiences
based on local and state standards.
104
every student.
2A7 Guides and monitors individual
professional development plans and
progress for continuous improvements
of teaching and learning.
1D Promote continuous and
sustainable improvement
2F Develop the instructional and
leadership capacity of staff
9(b) The teacher engages in
meaningful and appropriate
professional learning experiences
aligned with his/her own needs and
the needs of the learners, school,
and system.
every student.
progress for continuous improvements
3B6 Conducts personnel evaluation
processes that enhance professional
practice, in keeping with district and
state policies.
1B Collect and use data to identify
goals, assess organizational
effectiveness, and promote
organizational learning
(9(c) Independently and in
collaboration with colleagues, the
teacher uses a variety of data (e.g.,
systematic observation, information
about learners, research) to evaluate
the outcomes of teaching and
learning and to adapt planning and
practice. reflecting on and adapting
planning and practice.
9(d) The teacher actively seeks
professional, community, and
technological resources, within
and outside the school, as
supports for analysis, reflection,
and problem-solving.
and learning
9(e) The teacher reflects on his/
her personal biases and accesses
resources to deepen his/her own
understanding of cultural, ethnic,
gender, and learning differences
to build stronger relationships
and create more relevant learning
experiences.
5B4 Assess own personal
assumptions, values, beliefs, and
practices that guide improvement of
student learning.
relationships with community
partners
caregivers
105
9(f) The teacher advocates, models,
and teaches safe, legal, and ethical
use of information and technology
including appropriate documentation
of sources and respect for others in
the use of social media.
and fairness and expects the same
of others.
5A2 Protects the rights and
appropriate confidentiality of
students and staff.
5D Consider and evaluate
the potential moral and legal
consequences of decision-making
9(g) The teacher understands and
knows how to use a variety of selfassessment and problem-solving
strategies to analyze and reflect
on his/her practice and to plan for
adaptations/adjustments.
9(h) The teacher knows how to use
learner data to analyze practice and
differentiate instruction accordingly.
106
9(i) The teacher understands how
personal identity, worldview, and
prior experience affect perceptions
and expectations, and recognizes
how they may bias behaviors and
interactions with others.
5B4 Assesses own personal
assumptions, values, beliefs, and
practices that guide improvement of
student learning.
9(j) The teacher understands laws
related to learners’ rights and
teacher responsibilities (e.g., for
educational equity, appropriate
education for learners with
disabilities, confidentiality, privacy,
appropriate treatment of learners,
reporting in situations related to
possible child abuse).
and fairness and expects the same of
others.
5B1 Demonstrates respect for the
inherent dignity and worth of each
individual
6A1 Facilitates constructive
discussions with the public about
federal, state, and local laws,
policies, regulations, and statutory
requirements affecting continuous
improvement of educational
programs and outcomes.
9(k) The teacher knows how to
build and implement a plan for
professional growth directly
aligned with his/her needs as
a growing professional using
feedback from teacher evaluations
and observations, data on learner
performance, and school- and
system-wide priorities.
every student.
progress for continuous improvement
5. Ethical principles in all
N/A
9(m) The teacher is committed to
deepening understanding of his/
her own frames of reference (e.g.,
culture, gender, language, abilities,
ways of knowing), the potential
biases in these frames, and their
impact on expectations for and
relationships with learners and
their families.
5. Modeling high expectations
N/A
9(n) The teacher sees him/herself
as a learner, continuously seeking
opportunities to draw upon current
education policy and research as
sources of analysis and reflection to
improve practice.
N/A
9(o) The teacher understands the
expectations of the profession
including codes of ethics,
professional standards of practice,
and relevant law and policy.
5. Ethical principals in all
N/A
Standard #10: Leadership and
Collaboration.
The teacher seeks appropriate
leadership roles and opportunities
to take responsibility for student
learning, to collaborate with
learners, families, colleagues,
other school professionals, and
community members to ensure
learner growth, and to advance
the profession.
9(l) The teacher takes responsibility
for student learning and uses
ongoing analysis and reflection to
improve planning and practice.
107
10. Performances:
10(a) The teacher takes an active
role on the instructional team, giving
and receiving feedback on practice,
examining learner work, analyzing
data from multiple sources, and
sharing responsibility for decision
making and accountability for each
student’s learning.
high expectations
student progress
evaluation methods.
10(b) The teacher works with other
school professionals to plan and
jointly facilitate learning on how to
meet diverse needs of learners.
2A2A Nurture and sustain a culture
of collaboration, trust, learning, and
high expectations
student progress
programs.
108
10(c) The teacher engages
collaboratively in the schoolwide
effort to build a shared vision and
supportive culture, identify common
goals, and monitor and evaluate
progress toward those goals.
1A1 Uses varied sources of
information and analyzes data about
current practices and outcomes to
shape a vision, mission, and goals
with high, measurable expectations
for all students and educators.
implement a shared vision and
mission
1B Collect and use data to identify
goals, assess organizational
effectiveness, and promote
organizational learning
achieve goals
and revise plan
10(d) The teacher works
collaboratively with learners
and their families to establish
mutual expectations and ongoing
communication to support learner
development and achievement.
for children.
caregivers
strategies to communicate with
families and community members
(such as email, night meetings,
and written materials in multiple
languages.)
10(e) Working with school
colleagues, the teacher builds
ongoing connections with
community resources to enhance
student learning and well being.
for children.
community’s diverse cultural, social ,
strategies to communicate with
families and community members
(such as email, night meetings,
and written materials in multiple
languages.)
every student.
10(g) The teacher uses technological
tools and a variety of communication
strategies to build local and global
learning communities that engage
learners, families, and colleagues.
and learning
10(h) The teacher uses and generates
meaningful research on education
issues and policies.
for every student.
and learning.
10(i) The teacher seeks appropriate
opportunities to model effective
practice for colleagues, to lead
professional learning activities, and
to serve in other leadership roles.
1B3 Develops shared commitments
and responsibilities that are
distributed among staff and the
community for making decisions and
evaluating actions and outcomes.
10(f) The teacher engages in
professional learning, contributes to
the knowledge and skill of others,
and works collaboratively to advance
professional practice.
109
10(j) The teacher advocates to meet
the needs of learners, to strengthen
the learning environment, and to
enact system change.
6A3 Advocates for equity and
adequacy in providing for students’
and families’ educational, physical,
emotional, social, cultural, legal, and
economic needs, so every student
can meet educational expectations
and policy goals.
6A Advocates for children, families,
and caregivers
6B Act to influence local, district,
state, and national decisions
affecting student learning
6B2 Collects and accurately
communicates data about
educational performance in a clear
and timely way, relating specifics
about the local context to improve
policies and inform progressive
political debates.
6B4 Advocates for increased
support of excellence and equity in
education.
10(k) The teacher takes on leadership
roles at the school, district, state,
and/or national level and advocates
for learners, the school, the
community, and the profession.
6A3 Advocates for equity and
adequacy in providing for students’
and families’ educational, physical,
emotional, social, cultural, legal, and
economic needs, so every student
can meet educational expectations
and policy goals.
6A Advocates for children, families,
and caregivers
6B Act to influence local, district,
state, and national decisions
affecting student learning
6B2 Collects and accurately
communicates data about
educational performance in a clear
and timely way, relating specifics
about the local context to improve
policies and inform progressive
political debates.
6B4 Advocates for increased
support of excellence and equity in
education.
10(l) The teacher understands
schools as organizations within a
historical, cultural, political, and
social context and knows how to
work with others across the system to
support learners.
110
for children.
caregivers
4A2 Involves families in decision
making about their children’s
education.
4A4 Applies communication and
collaboration strategies to develop
family and local community
partnerships.
10(m) The teacher understands that
alignment of family, school, and
community spheres of influence
enhances student learning and that
discontinuity in these spheres of
influence interferes with learning.
for children.
10(n) The teacher knows how to work
with other adults and has developed
skills in collaborative interaction
appropriate for both face-to-face and
virtual contexts.
caregivers
4A4 Applies communication and
collaboration strategies to develop
family and local community
partnerships.
relationships with community
partners
10(o) The teacher knows how to
contribute to a common culture
that supports high expectations for
student learning.
1B2 Engages diverse stakeholder,
including those with conflicting
perspectives, in ways that build
shared understanding and
commitment to vision, mission, and
goals.
implement a shared vision and
mission
1B4 Communicates and acts from
shared vision, mission, and goals
so educators and the community
understand, support, and act on
them consistently.
10(p) The teacher actively shares
responsibility for shaping and
supporting the mission of his/
her school as one of advocacy for
learners and accountability for their
success.
10(q) The teacher respects families’
beliefs, norms, and expectations and
seeks to work collaboratively with
learners and families in setting and
meeting challenging goals.
10(r) The teacher takes initiative to
grow and develop with colleagues
through interactions that enhance
practice and support student
learning.
purpose of school
10(s) The teacher takes responsibility
for contributing to and advancing the
profession.
6. Advocate for children and
education
10(t) The teacher embraces
the challenges of continuous
improvement and change.
1.Continuous improvement using
evidence
N/A
5. The common good over personal
interests
N/A
4. Including family and community as
partners
N/A
and development
N/A
6. Influence policies
improvement for all
and development
N/A
111
Appendix C
Mapping the Model Teacher Leadership Standards with the
Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008
Teacher Leadership Standards
Developed by the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium
Domain I: Fostering a Collaborative Culture to Support Educator Development and Student Learning
The teacher leader understands the principles of adult learning and knows how to develop a
collaborative culture of collective responsibility in the school. The teacher leader uses this knowledge
to promote an environment of collegiality, trust and respect that focuses on continuous improvement in
instruction and student learning. ISLLC 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Functions
The teacher leader:
112
•
Utilizes group processes to help colleagues16 work collaboratively to solve problems, make
decisions, manage conflict and promote meaningful change; ISLLC 1C, 3C, 3D
•
Models effective skills in listening, presenting ideas, leading discussions, clarifying, mediating,
and identifying the needs of self and others in order to advance shared goals and professional
learning; ISLLC 1C, 5B
•
Employs facilitation skills to create trust among colleagues, develop collective wisdom, build
ownership and action that supports student learning; ISLLC 2A
•
Strives to create an inclusive culture where diverse perspectives are welcomed in addressing
challenges; ISLLC 5C and
•
Uses knowledge and understanding of different backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures and
languages to promote effective interactions among colleagues. ISLLC 4B
Domain II: Accessing and Using Research to Improve Practice and Student Learning
The teacher leader understands how research creates new knowledge, informs policies and practices
and improves teaching and learning. The teacher leader models and facilitates the use of systematic
inquiry as a critical component of teachers’ ongoing learning and development. ISLLC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
16 By colleagues, we mean members of the school community, including teachers, administrators, specialists
and others involved in the education of children at the school or district level.
Functions
The teacher leader:
•
Assists colleagues in accessing and using research in order to select appropriate strategies to
improve student learning; ISLLC 4A
•
Facilitates the analysis of student learning data, collaborative interpretation of results, and
application of findings to improve teaching and learning;
•
ISLLC 1E, 3A, 4A
•
Supports colleagues in collaborating with the higher education institutions and other
organizations engaged in researching critical educational issues; ISLLC 4D and
•
Teaches and supports colleagues to collect, analyze, and communicate data from their
classrooms to improve teaching and learning. ISLLC 1B
Domain III: Promoting Professional Learning for Continuous Improvement
The teacher leader understands the evolving nature of teaching and learning, established and emerging
technologies, and the school community. The teacher leader uses this knowledge to promote, design, and
facilitate job-embedded professional learning aligned with school improvement goals. ISLLC 1, 2 3, 5
Functions:
The teacher leader:
Collaborates with colleagues and school administrators to plan professional learning that is
team-based, job-embedded, sustained over time, aligned with content standards and linked to
school/district improvement goals;
•
ISLLC 1A, 2F
•
Uses information about adult learning to respond to the diverse learning needs of colleagues by
identifying, promoting and facilitating varied and differentiated professional learning; ISLLC 1A, 2F
•
Facilitates professional learning among colleagues; ISLLC 1D, 2A
•
Identifies and uses appropriate technologies to promote collaborative and differentiated
professional learning; ISLLC 2H, 3B
•
Works with colleagues to collect, analyze and disseminate data related to the quality of
professional learning and its effect on teaching and student learning; ISLLC 1B
•
Advocates for sufficient preparation, time and support for colleagues to work in teams to
engage in job-embedded professional learning; ISLLC 2G, 6B
•
113
•
Provides constructive feedback to colleagues to strengthen teaching practice and improve
student learning; ISLLC 2F and
•
Uses information about emerging education, economic and social trends in planning and
facilitating professional learning. ISLLC 6C
Domain IV: Facilitating Improvements in Instruction and Student Learning
The teacher leader demonstrates a deep understanding of the teaching and learning processes and
uses this knowledge to advance the professional skills of colleagues by being a continuous learner and
modeling reflective practice based on student results. The teacher leader works collaboratively with
colleagues to ensure instructional practices are aligned to a shared vision, mission and goals. ISLLC 2, 3
Functions
The teacher leader:
114
•
Facilitates the collection, analysis and use of classroom- and school-based data to identify
opportunities to improve curriculum, instruction, assessment, school organization and school
culture; ISLLC 2B, 2D, 2I
•
Engages in reflective dialog with colleagues based on observation of instruction, student work and
assessment data and helps make connections to research-based effective practices; ISLLC 3E
•
Supports colleagues’ individual and collective reflection and professional growth by serving in
roles such as a mentor, coach, and content facilitator;
•
ISLLC 2A, 3D
•
Serves as a team leader to harness the skills, expertise and knowledge of colleagues to address
curricular expectations and student learning needs;
•
ISLLC 2C, 3D
•
Uses knowledge of existing and emerging technologies to guide colleagues in helping students
skillfully and appropriately navigate the universe of knowledge available on the Internet, use
social media to promote collaborative learning, and connect with people and resources around
the globe; ISLLC 2H, 3B and
•
Promotes instructional strategies that address issues of diversity and equity in the classroom
and ensures that individual student learning needs remain the central focus of instruction.
ISLLC 2C, 5C, 2F
Domain V: Promoting the Use of Assessments and Data for School and District Improvement
The teacher leader is knowledgeable about current research on classroom- and school-based data and the
design and selection of appropriate formative and summative assessment methods. The teacher leader shares
this knowledge and collaborates with colleagues to use assessment and other data to make informed decisions
that improve learning for all students and to inform school and district improvement strategies. ISLLC 1, 2
Functions
The teacher leader:
•
Increases the capacity of colleagues to identify and use multiple assessment tools aligned to
state and local standards; ISLLC 2F
•
Collaborates with colleagues in the design, implementation, scoring and interpretation of
student data to improve educational practice and student learning; ISLLC 1D, 2E, 5A
•
Creates a climate of trust and critical reflection in order to engage colleagues in challenging
conversations about student learning data that lead to solutions to identified issues; ISLLC 2A, 5B
•
Works with colleagues to use assessment and data findings to promote changes in instructional
practices or organizational structures to improve student learning. ISLLC 1B
Domain VI. Improving Outreach and Collaboration with Families and Community
The teacher leader understands that families, cultures and communities have a significant impact on
educational processes and student learning. The teacher leader works with colleagues to promote ongoing
systematic collaboration with families, community members, business and community leaders, and other
stakeholders to improve the educational system and expand opportunities for student learning. ISLLC 4, 5
Functions
The teacher leader:
Uses knowledge and understanding of the different backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and
languages in the school community to promote effective interactions among colleagues,
families and the larger community; ISLLC 3C, 4B
•
Models and teaches effective communication and collaboration skills with families and other
stakeholders focused on attaining equitable achievement for students of all backgrounds and
circumstances; ISLLC 4C
•
Facilitates colleagues’ self-examination of their own understandings of community culture and
diversity and how they can develop culturally responsive strategies to enrich the educational
experiences of students and achieve high levels of learning for all students; ISLLC 5C
•
Develops a shared understanding among colleagues of the diverse educational needs of
families and the community; ISLLC 4A and
•
Collaborates with families, communities and colleagues to develop comprehensive strategies to
address the diverse educational needs of families and the community. ISLLC 4C
•
115
Domain VII: Advocating for Student Learning and the Profession
The teacher leader understands how educational policy is made at the local, state and national level
as well as the roles of school leaders, boards of education, legislators and other stakeholders in
formulating those policies. The teacher leader uses this knowledge to advocate for student needs and
for practices that support effective teaching and increase student learning, and serves as an individual
of influence and respect within the school, community and profession. ISLLC 5, 6
Functions:
The teacher leader:
116
•
Shares information with colleagues within and/or beyond the district regarding how local, state
and national trends and policies can impact classroom practices and expectations for student
learning; ISLLC 6C
•
Works with colleagues to identify and use research to advocate for teaching and learning
processes that meet the needs of all students; ISLLC 5D, 6A, 6B
•
Collaborates with colleagues to select appropriate opportunities to advocate for the rights and/
or needs of students, to secure additional resources within the building or district that support
student learning, and to communicate effectively with targeted audiences such as parents and
community members;
•
ISLLC 5D, 5E, 6B
•
Advocates for access to professional resources, including financial support and human and
other material resources, that allow colleagues to spend significant time learning about
effective practices and developing a professional learning community focused on school
improvement goals; ISLLC 6B and
•
Represents and advocates for the profession in contexts outside of the classroom. ISLLC 5D,
5E, 6B, 6C
Model Teacher Leader Standards
Standard 1 – An education leader promotes the success of
every student by facilitating the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared
and supported by all stakeholders.
X
A. Collaboratively develop and implement a shared vision and mission
X
B. Collect and use data to identify goals, assess organizational
effectiveness, and promote organizational learning
X
C. Create and implement plans to achieve goals
X
D. Promote continuous and sustainable improvement
X
E. Monitor and evaluate progress and revise plans
X
Standard 2 – An education leader promotes the success of every
student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
X
A. Nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and
high expectations
X
B. Create a comprehensive, rigorous, and coherent curricular program
X
C. Create a personalized and motivating learning environment for students
X
D. Supervise instruction
X
E. Develop assessment and accountability systems to monitor
student progress
X
F. Develop the instructional and leadership capacity of staff
X
G. Maximize time spent on quality instruction
X
H. Promote the use of the most effective and appropriate technologies
to support teaching and learning
X
I. Monitor and evaluate the impact of the instructional program
X
student by ensuring management of the organization, operation, and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
X
A. Monitor and evaluate the management and operational systems
X
B. Obtain, allocate, align, and efficiently utilize human, fiscal, and
X
C. Promote and protect the welfare and safety of students and staff
X
D. Develop the capacity for distributed leadership
X
E. Ensure teacher and organizational time is focused to support quality
instruction and student learning
X
ISLLC 2008
117
118
student by collaborating with faculty and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing
community resources.
X
A. Collect and analyze data and information pertinent to the educational
environment
X
B. Promotes understanding, appreciation, and use of the community’s
diverse cultural, social and intellectual resources
X
C. Build and sustain positive relationships with families and caregivers
X
D. Build and sustain productive relationships with community partners
X
student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
X
A. Ensure a system of accountability for every student’s academic and
social success
X
B. Model principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency,
and ethical behavior
X
C. Safeguard the values of democracy, equity, and diversity
X
D. Consider and evaluate the potential moral and legal consequences of
decision-making
X
E. Promote social justice and ensure that individual student needs inform
X
student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the
political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
X
A. Advocate for children, families, and caregivers
X
B. Act to influence local, district, state, and national decisions affecting
student learning
X
C. Assess, analyze, and anticipate emerging trends and initiatives in
order to adapt leadership strategies
X
Appendix D
InTASC 2011
Standard #1: Learner Development
Model Teacher Leader Standards
X
The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing
that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and
across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and
designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging
learning experiences.
1(a) The teacher regularly assesses individual and group performance in
order to design and modify instruction to meet learners’ needs in each
area of development (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical)
and scaffolds the next level of development.
X
1(b) The teacher creates developmentally appropriate instruction that
takes into account individual learners’ strengths, interests, and needs and
that enables each learner to advance and accelerate his/her learning.
1(c) The teacher collaborates with families, communities, colleagues, and
other professionals to promote learner growth and development
X
1(d) The teacher understands how learning occurs--how learners
construct knowledge, acquire skills, and develop disciplined thinking
processes--and knows how to use instructional strategies that promote
student learning.
X
1(e) The teacher understands that each learner’s cognitive, linguistic,
social, emotional, and physical development influences learning and
knows how to make instructional decisions that build on learners’
strengths and needs.
X
1(f) The teacher identifies readiness for learning, and understands how
development in any one area may affect performance in others.
1(g) The teacher understands the role of language and culture in learning
and knows how to modify instruction to make language comprehensible
and instruction relevant, accessible, and challenging
X
1(i) The teacher is committed to using learners’ strengths as a basis for
growth, and their misconceptions as opportunities for learning.
1(j) The teacher takes responsibility for promoting learners’ growth
and development.
1(k) The teacher values the input and contributions of families,
colleagues, and other professionals in understanding and supporting
each learner’s development.
X
1(h) The teacher respects learners’ differing strengths and needs and is
committed to using this information to further each learner’s development.
119
Standard #2: Learning Differences
X
The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse
cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that
enable each learner to meet high standards.
2(a) The teacher designs, adapts, and delivers instruction to address each
student’s diverse learning strengths and needs and creates opportunities
for students to demonstrate their learning in different ways.
2(b) The teacher makes appropriate and timely provisions (e.g., pacing for
individual rates of growth, task demands, communication, assessment,
and response modes) for individual students with particular learning
differences or needs.
2(c) The teacher designs instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge
and experiences, allowing learners to accelerate as they demonstrate
their understandings.
X
2(d) The teacher brings multiple perspectives to the discussion of
content, including attention to learners’ personal, family, and community
experiences and cultural norms.
X
2(e) The teacher incorporates tools of language development into
planning and instruction, including strategies for making content
accessible to English language learners and for evaluating and supporting
their development of English proficiency.
2(f) The teacher accesses resources, supports, and specialized assistance
and services to meet particular learning differences or needs.
X
2(g) The teacher understands and identifies differences in approaches to
learning and performance and knows how to design instruction that uses
each learner’s strengths to promote growth.
X
2(h) The teacher understands students with exceptional needs, including
those associated with disabilities and giftedness, and knows how to use
strategies and resources to address these needs.
2(i) The teacher knows about second language acquisition processes
and knows how to incorporate instructional strategies and resources to
support language acquisition.
120
2(j) The teacher understands that learners bring assets for learning based
on their individual experiences, abilities, talents, prior learning, and peer
and social group interactions, as well as language, culture, family, and
community values.
X
2(k) The teacher knows how to access information about the values
of diverse cultures and communities and how to incorporate learners’
experiences, cultures, and community resources into instruction.
X
2(l) The teacher believes that all students can achieve at high levels and
persists in helping each student reach his/her full potential.
2(m) The teacher respects learners as individuals with differing personal
and family backgrounds and various skills, abilities, perspectives, talents,
and interests.
2(n) The teacher makes learners feel valued and helps them learn to value
each other.
X
2(o) The teacher values diverse languages and dialects and seeks to integrate
them into his/her instructional practice to engage students in learning.
X
Standard #3: Learning Environments
X
The teacher works with others to create environments that support
individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.
3(a) The teacher collaborates with learners, families, and colleagues
to build a safe, positive learning climate of openness, mutual respect,
support, and inquiry.Critical Disposition
X
3(b) The teacher develops learning experiences that engage learners
in collaborative and self-directed learning and that extend learner
interaction with ideas and people locally and globally.
X
3(c) The teacher collaborates with learners and colleagues to develop shared
values and expectations for respectful interactions, rigorous academic
discussions, and individual and group responsibility for quality work.
X
3(d) The teacher manages the learning environment to actively and
equitably engage learners by organizing, allocating, and coordinating the
resources of time, space, and learners’ attention.
X
3(e) The teacher uses a variety of methods to engage learners in
evaluating the learning environment and collaborates with learners to
make appropriate adjustments.
X
3(f) The teacher communicates verbally and nonverbally in ways that
demonstrate respect for and responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds
and differing perspectives learners bring to the learning environment.
X
3(g) The teacher promotes responsible learner use of interactive
technologies to extend the possibilities for learning locally and globally.
X
3(h) The teacher intentionally builds learner capacity to collaborate
in face-to-face and virtual environments through applying effective
interpersonal communication skills.
X
3(j) The teacher knows how to help learners work productively and
cooperatively with each other to achieve learning goals.
3(k) The teacher knows how to collaborate with learners to establish
and monitor elements of a safe and productive learning environment
including norms, expectations, routines, and organizational structures.
X
3(l) The teacher understands how learner diversity can affect communication
and knows how to communicate effectively in differing environments.
3(m) The teacher knows how to use technologies and how to guide
learners to apply them in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.
X
3(i) The teacher understands the relationship between motivation and
engagement and knows how to design learning experiences using
strategies that build learner self-direction and ownership of learning.
121
3(n) The teacher is committed to working with learners, colleagues, families,
and communities to establish positive and supportive learning environments.
X
3(o) The teacher values the role of learners in promoting each other’s
learning and recognizes the importance of peer relationships in
establishing a climate of learning.
3(p) The teacher is committed to supporting learners as they participate
in decision making, engage in exploration and invention, work
collaboratively and independently, and engage in purposeful learning.
3(q) The teacher seeks to foster respectful communication among all
members of the learning community.
X
3(r) The teacher is a thoughtful and responsive listener and observer.
X
Standard #4: Content Knowledge
X
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and
structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning
experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and
meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.
4(a) The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and
explanations that capture key ideas in the discipline, guide learners
through learning progressions, and promote each learner’s achievement
of content standards.
4(b) The teacher engages students in learning experiences in the
discipline(s) that encourage learners to understand, question, and analyze
ideas from diverse perspectives so that they master the content.
X
4(c) The teacher engages learners in applying methods of inquiry and
standards of evidence used in the discipline.
X
4(d) The teacher stimulates learner reflection on prior content knowledge,
links new concepts to familiar concepts, and makes connections to
learners’ experiences.
X
4(e) The teacher recognizes learner misconceptions in a discipline
that interfere with learning, and creates experiences to build accurate
122
4(f) The teacher evaluates and modifies instructional resources and
curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy for
representing particular concepts in the discipline, and appropriateness
for his/her learners.
4(g) The teacher uses supplementary resources and technologies
effectively to ensure accessibility and relevance for all learners.
4(h) The teacher creates opportunities for students to learn, practice, and
master academic language in their content.
4(i) The teacher accesses school and/or district-based resources to
evaluate the learner’s content knowledge in their primary language.
4(j) The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates,
processes of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the
discipline(s) s/he teaches.
X
4(k) The teacher understands common misconceptions in learning the
discipline and how to guide learners to accurate conceptual understanding.
4(l) The teacher knows and uses the academic language of the discipline
and knows how to make it accessible to learners.
4(m) The teacher knows how to integrate culturally relevant content to
build on learners’ background knowledge.
X
4(n) The teacher has a deep knowledge of student content standards and
learning progressions in the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
4(o) The teacher realizes that content knowledge is not a fixed body of
facts but is complex, culturally situated, and ever evolving. S/he keeps
abreast of new ideas and understandings in the field.
4(p) The teacher appreciates multiple perspectives within the discipline
and facilitates learners’ critical analysis of these perspectives.
4(q) The teacher recognizes the potential of bias in his/her representation
of the discipline and seeks to appropriately address problems of bias.
4(r) The teacher is committed to work toward each learner’s mastery of
disciplinary content and skills.
Standard #5: Application of Content
X
The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing
perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and
collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.
5(a) The teacher develops and implements projects that guide learners
in analyzing the complexities of an issue or question using perspectives
from varied disciplines and cross-disciplinary skills (e.g., a water
quality study that draws upon biology and chemistry to look at factual
information and social studies to examine policy implications).
X
5(b) The teacher engages learners in applying content knowledge to real
world problems through the lens of interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial
literacy, environmental literacy).
X
5(c) The teacher facilitates learners’ use of current tools and resources to
maximize content learning in varied contexts.
X
5(e) The teacher develops learners’ communication skills in disciplinary
and interdisciplinary contexts by creating meaningful opportunities
to employ a variety of forms of communication that address varied
audiences and purposes.
X
5(f) The teacher engages learners in generating and evaluating new ideas
and novel approaches, seeking inventive solutions to problems, and
developing original work.
X
5(g) The teacher facilitates learners’ ability to develop diverse social and
cultural perspectives that expand their understanding of local and global
issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
X
5(d) The teacher engages learners in questioning and challenging
assumptions and approaches in order to foster innovation and problem
solving in local and global contexts.
123
5(h) The teacher develops and implements supports for learner literacy
development across content areas.
5(i) The teacher understands the ways of knowing in his/her discipline,
how it relates to other disciplinary approaches to inquiry, and the
strengths and limitations of each approach in addressing problems,
issues, and concerns.
5(j) The teacher understands how current interdisciplinary themes (e.g., civic
literacy, health literacy, global awareness) connect to the core subjects and
knows how to weave those themes into meaningful learning experiences.
X
5(k) The teacher understands the demands of accessing and managing
information as well as how to evaluate issues of ethics and quality related
to information and its use.
5(l) The teacher understands how to use digital and interactive
technologies for efficiently and effectively achieving specific learning goals.
X
5(m) The teacher understands critical thinking processes and knows how
to help learners develop high level questioning skills to promote their
independent learning.
X
5(n) The teacher understands communication modes and skills as vehicles
for learning (e.g., information gathering and processing) across disciplines
as well as vehicles for expressing learning.
X
5(o) The teacher understands creative thinking processes and how to
engage learners in producing original work.
5(p) The teacher knows where and how to access resources to build global
awareness and understanding, and how to integrate them into the curriculum.
5(q) The teacher is constantly exploring how to use disciplinary
knowledge as a lens to address local and global issues.
5(r) The teacher values knowledge outside his/her own content area and
how such knowledge enhances student learning.
5(s) The teacher values flexible learning environments that encourage
learner exploration, discovery, and expression across content areas.
Standard #6: Assessment
124
X
The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to
engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to
guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making.
6(a) The teacher balances the use of formative and summative assessment
as appropriate to support, verify, and document learning.
X
6(b) The teacher designs assessments that match learning objectives
with assessment methods and minimizes sources of bias that can distort
assessment results.
X
6(c) The teacher works independently and collaboratively to examine test
and other performance data to understand each learner’s progress and to
guide planning.
X
6(d) The teacher engages learners in understanding and identifying
quality work and provides them with effective descriptive feedback to
guide their progress toward that work.
6(e) The teacher engages learners in multiple ways of demonstrating
knowledge and skill as part of the assessment process.
6(f) The teacher models and structures processes that guide learners in
examining their own thinking and learning as well as the performance
of others.
6(g) The teacher effectively uses multiple and appropriate types of
assessment data to identify each student’s learning needs and to develop
differentiated learning experiences.
X
6(h) The teacher prepares all learners for the demands of particular
assessment formats and makes appropriate accommodations in
assessments or testing conditions, especially for learners with disabilities
and language learning needs.
6(i) The teacher continually seeks appropriate ways to employ technology
to support assessment practice both to engage learners more fully and to
assess and address learner needs.
6(j) The teacher understands the differences between formative and
summative applications of assessment and knows how and when to use each.
X
6(k) The teacher understands the range of types and multiple purposes of
assessment and how to design, adapt, or select appropriate assessments
to address specific learning goals and individual differences, and to
minimize sources of bias.
X
6(l) The teacher knows how to analyze assessment data to understand
patterns and gaps in learning, to guide planning and instruction, and to
provide meaningful feedback to all learners.
X
6(m) The teacher knows when and how to engage learners in analyzing their
own assessment results and in helping to set goals for their own learning.
X
6(n) The teacher understands the positive impact of effective descriptive
feedback for learners and knows a variety of strategies for communicating
this feedback.
6(p) The teacher understands how to prepare learners for assessments
and how to make accommodations in assessments and testing conditions,
especially for learners with disabilities and language learning needs.
6(q) The teacher is committed to engaging learners actively in assessment
processes and to developing each learner’s capacity to review and
communicate about their own progress and learning.
6(r) The teacher takes responsibility for aligning instruction and
assessment with learning goals.
6(s) The teacher is committed to providing timely and effective
descriptive feedback to learners on their progress.
X
6(o) The teacher knows when and how to evaluate and report learner
progress against standards.
125
6(t) The teacher is committed to using multiple types of assessment
processes to support, verify, and document learning.
6(u) The teacher is committed to making accommodations in assessments
and testing conditions, especially for learners with disabilities and
language learning needs.
6(v) The teacher is committed to the ethical use of various assessments
and assessment data to identify learner strengths and needs to promote
learner growth.
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction
X
The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting
rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas,
curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge
of learners and the community context.
7(a) The teacher individually and collaboratively selects and creates
learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals and
content standards, and are relevant to learners.
X
7(b) The teacher plans how to achieve each student’s learning goals,
choosing appropriate strategies and accommodations, resources, and
materials to differentiate instruction for individuals and groups of learners.
7(c) The teacher develops appropriate sequencing of learning experiences
and provides multiple ways to demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7(d) The teacher plans for instruction based on formative and summative
assessment data, prior learner knowledge, and learner interest.
X
7(e) The teacher plans collaboratively with professionals who have
specialized expertise (e.g., special educators, related service providers,
language learning specialists, librarians, media specialists) to design
and jointly deliver as appropriate learning experiences to meet unique
learning needs.
X
7(f) The teacher evaluates plans in relation to short- and long-range goals
and systematically adjusts plans to meet each student’s learning needs
and enhance learning.
7(g) The teacher understands content and content standards and how
these are organized in the curriculum.
126
7(h) The teacher understands how integrating crossdisciplinary skills in
instruction engages learners purposefully in applying content knowledge.
X
7(i) The teacher understands learning theory, human development,
cultural diversity, and individual differences and how these impact
ongoing planning.
X
7(j) The teacher understands the strengths and needs of individual
learners and how to plan instruction that is responsive to these strengths
and needs.
X
7(k) The teacher knows a range of evidence-based instructional
strategies, resources, and technological tools and how to use them
effectively to plan instruction that meets diverse learning needs.
X
7(l) The teacher knows when and how to adjust plans based on
assessment information and learner responses.
7(m) The teacher knows when and how to access resources and
collaborate with others to support student learning (e.g., special
educators, related service providers, language learner specialists,
librarians, media specialists, community organizations).
7(n) The teacher respects learners’ diverse strengths and needs and is
committed to using this information to plan effective instruction.
X
7(o) The teacher values planning as a collegial activity that takes into
consideration the input of learners, colleagues, families, and the
larger community.
X
7(p) The teacher takes professional responsibility to use short- and longterm planning as a means of assuring student learning.
7(q) The teacher believes that plans must always be open to adjustment
and revision based on learner needs and changing circumstances.
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies
X
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies
to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content
areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
8(a) The teacher uses appropriate strategies and resources to adapt
instruction to the needs of individuals and groups of learners.
X
8(b) The teacher continuously monitors student learning, engages
learners in assessing their progress, and adjusts instruction in response to
student learning needs.
8(c) The teacher collaborates with learners to design and implement
relevant learning experiences, identify their strengths, and access family
and community resources to develop their areas of interest.
X
8(d) The teacher varies his/her role in the instructional process (e.g.,
instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in relation to the content and
purposes of instruction and the needs of learners.
X
8(f) The teacher engages all learners in developing higher order
questioning skills and metacognitive processes.
8(g) The teacher engages learners in using a range of learning skills and
technology tools to access, interpret, evaluate, and apply information.
8(h) The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to support and
expand learners’ communication through speaking, listening, reading,
writing, and other modes.
X
8(e) The teacher provides multiple models and representations of
concepts and skills with opportunities for learners to demonstrate their
knowledge through a variety of products and performances.
127
8(i) The teacher asks questions to stimulate discussion that serves
different purposes (e.g., probing for learner understanding, helping
learners articulate their ideas and thinking processes, stimulating
curiosity, and helping learners to question.
8(j) The teacher understands the cognitive processes associated with
various kinds of learning (e.g., critical and creative thinking, problem
framing and problem solving, invention, memorization and recall) and
how these processes can be stimulated.
8(k) The teacher knows how to apply a range of developmentally,
culturally, and linguistically appropriate instructional strategies to achieve
learning goals.
8(l) The teacher knows when and how to use appropriate strategies to
differentiate instruction and engage all learners in complex thinking and
meaningful tasks.
8(m) The teacher understands how multiple forms of communication (oral,
written, nonverbal, digital, visual) convey ideas, foster self expression, and
build relationships.
8(n) The teacher knows how to use a wide variety of resources, including
human and technological, to engage students in learning.
X
8(o) The teacher understands how content and skill development can be
supported by media and technology and knows how to evaluate these
resources for quality, accuracy, and effectiveness.
X
8(p) The teacher is committed to deepening awareness and
understanding the strengths and needs of diverse learners when planning
and adjusting instruction.
8(q) The teacher values the variety of ways people communicate and
encourages learners to develop and use multiple forms of communication.
8(r) The teacher is committed to exploring how the use of new and
emerging technologies can support and promote student learning.
X
8(s) The teacher values flexibility and reciprocity in the teaching process as
necessary for adapting instruction to learner responses, ideas, and needs.
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
128
X
The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence
to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her
choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and
the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.
9(a) The teacher engages in ongoing learning opportunities to develop
knowledge and skills in order to provide all learners with engaging
curriculum and learning experiences based on local and state standards.
9(b) The teacher engages in meaningful and appropriate professional
learning experiences aligned with his/her own needs and the needs of
the learners, school, and system.
X
9(c) Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, the teacher uses
a variety of data (e.g., systematic observation, information about learners,
research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt
planning and practice.
X
9(d) The teacher actively seeks professional, community, and
technological resources, within and outside the school, as supports for
analysis, reflection, and problem-solving.
9(e) The teacher reflects on his/her personal biases and accesses
resources to deepen his/her own understanding of cultural, ethnic,
gender, and learning differences to build stronger relationships and
create more relevant learning experiences.
X
9(f) The teacher advocates, models, and teaches safe, legal, and ethical
use of information and technology including appropriate documentation
of sources and respect for others in the use of social media.
9(g) The teacher understands and knows how to use a variety of selfassessment and problem-solving strategies to analyze and reflect on his/
her practice and to plan for adaptations/adjustments.
9(h) The teacher knows how to use learner data to analyze practice and
differentiate instruction accordingly.
X
9(i) The teacher understands how personal identity, worldview, and prior
experience affect perceptions and expectations, and recognizes how they
may bias behaviors and interactions with others.
9(j) The teacher understands laws related to learners’ rights and teacher
responsibilities (e.g., for educational equity, appropriate education for
learners with disabilities, confidentiality, privacy, appropriate treatment of
learners, reporting in situations related to possible child abuse).
9(k) The teacher knows how to build and implement a plan for
professional growth directly aligned with his/her needs as a growing
professional using feedback from teacher evaluations and observations,
data on learner performance, and school- and system-wide priorities.
X
9(l) The teacher takes responsibility for student learning and uses ongoing
analysis and reflection to improve planning and practice.
9(n) The teacher sees him/herself as a learner, continuously seeking
opportunities to draw upon current education policy and research as
sources of analysis and reflection to improve practice.
9(o) The teacher understands the expectations of the profession
including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and
relevant law and policy.
X
9(m) The teacher is committed to deepening understanding of his/her
own frames of reference (e.g., culture, gender, language, abilities, ways
of knowing), the potential biases in these frames, and their impact on
expectations for and relationships with learners and their families.
129
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration
X
The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take
responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families,
colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to
ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession.
130
10(a) The teacher takes an active role on the instructional team, giving
and receiving feedback on practice, examining learner work, analyzing
data from multiple sources, and sharing responsibility for decision making
and accountability for each student’s learning.
X
10(b) The teacher works with other school professionals to plan and jointly
facilitate learning on how to meet diverse needs of learners.
X
10(c) The teacher engages collaboratively in the schoolwide effort to
build a shared vision and supportive culture, identify common goals, and
monitor and evaluate progress toward those goals.
X
10(d) The teacher works collaboratively with learners and their families to
establish mutual expectations and ongoing communication to support
learner development and achievement.
X
10(e) Working with school colleagues, the teacher builds ongoing
connections with community resources to enhance student learning and
well being.
X
10(f) The teacher engages in professional learning, contributes to the
knowledge and skill of others, and works collaboratively to advance
professional practice.
X
10(g) The teacher uses technological tools and a variety of
communication strategies to build local and global learning communities
that engage learners, families, and colleagues.
X
10(h) The teacher uses and generates meaningful research on education
issues and policies.
X
10(i) The teacher seeks appropriate opportunities to model effective
practice for colleagues, to lead professional learning activities, and to
serve in other leadership roles.
X
10(j) The teacher advocates to meet the needs of learners, to strengthen
the learning environment, and to enact system change.
X
10(k) The teacher takes on leadership roles at the school, district,
state, and/or national level and advocates for learners, the school, the
community, and the profession.
X
10(l) The teacher understands schools as organizations within a historical,
cultural, political, and social context and knows how to work with others
across the system to support learners.
X
10(m) The teacher understands that alignment of family, school, and
community spheres of influence enhances student learning and that
discontinuity in these spheres of influence interferes with learning.
X
10(n) The teacher knows how to work with other adults and has
developed skills in collaborative interaction appropriate for both face-toface and virtual contexts.
X
10(o) The teacher knows how to contribute to a common culture that
supports high expectations for student learning.
X
10(p) The teacher actively shares responsibility for shaping and
supporting the mission of his/her school as one of advocacy for learners
and accountability for their success.
X
10(q) The teacher respects families’ beliefs, norms, and expectations and
seeks to work collaboratively with learners and families in setting and
meeting challenging goals.
X
10(r) The teacher takes initiative to grow and develop with colleagues
through interactions that enhance practice and support student learning.
X
10(s) The teacher takes responsibility for contributing to and advancing
the profession.
X
10(t) The teacher embraces the challenge of continuous improvement and
change.
X
131
Appendix E
A Crosswalk of Principal Implementation of Common Core Shifts in ELA and Math,17 the
ISLLC 2008 Standards, and Performance Expectations & Indicators for Education Leaders
ELA/Literacy Shift 1: Balancing Informational and Literacy Text
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Purchase and provide equal amounts of informational and literacy texts
for each classroom.
2H
2A5, 3B2
• Provide PD and co-planning opportunities for teachers to become more
intimate with non-fiction texts and the way they spiral together.
2F, 3E
2A2
• Support and demand ELA teachers’ transition to a balance of
informational text.
2B, 2D, 2F, 2I
2A2, 2A7, 3B6
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Hold teachers accountable for building student content knowledge
through text.
2D, 2E, 2I
3B6, 2A7
• Support and demand the role of all teachers in advancing students’ literacy.
2A, 2B, 2D, 2F
2A2, 2A7, 3B6
• Give teachers permission to slow down and deeply study texts with students.
2F, 2G
2A3, 2A4
ISLLC 2008
Standard
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Ensure that texts are appropriately complex at every grade and that
complexity of text builds from grade to grade.
2B, 2D
2A3
• Support and demand that teachers build a unit in a way that has students
scaffold to more complex texts over time.
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D,
2E, 2F
2A3, 2A6, 3B6
Principal’s Role
ELA/Literacy Shift 2: 6-12 Knowledge in the Disciplines
Principal’s Role
ELA/Literacy Shift 3: Staircase of Complexity
Principal’s Role
132
ELA/Literacy Shift 4: Text Based Answers
Principal’s Role
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Support and demand that teachers work through and tolerate student
frustration with complex texts and learn to chunk and scaffold that text.
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D,
2E, 2F, 2H
2B1, 2B2, 2B4
• Provide planning time for teachers to engage with the text to prepare and
identify appropriate text-dependent questions.
2F, 2G, 3E
1C6, 2A4, 2B1,
2B3
• Hold teachers accountable for fostering evidence based conversations
about texts with and amongst students.
2D, 2E
2A6, 2C1, 2C2
17 Adaptation of Engage NY “Leadership in the Common Core – A Call for Transformational Leadership” www.
engageNY.org
ELA/Literacy Shift 5: Writing from Sources
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
2A, 2B, 2E, 2D,
2E, 2F, 2H
1C6, 2A1, 2B4,
2C1, 2C2
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Shift attention on how to plan vocabulary meaningfully using tiers and
transferability strategies.
2B, 2F
2B1, 2B3
• Provide training to teachers on the shift for teaching vocabulary in a more
meaningful, effective manner.
2B, 2F, 3E
2A2
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
Principal’s Role
• Support, enable, and demand that teachers spend more time with
students writing about the texts they read – building strong arguments
using evidence from the text.
ELA/Literacy Shift 6: Academic Vocabulary
Principal’s Role
Mathematics Shift 1: Focus
Principal’s Role
• Work with groups of math teachers to determine what content to prioritize
most deeply and what content can be removed (or decrease attention).
2A, 2B, 2D, 2F,
3D
2B1, 2B2
• Give teachers permission and hold teachers accountable for focusing on
the priority standards immediately.
2D, 2E
2B2, 2C2, 3B6
• Ensure that teachers have enough time, with a focused body of material,
to build their own depth of knowledge.
2F, 3E
2A4
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
2A, 2F, 2H
2A5, 2B2
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
1A, 1B
2A1
Mathematics Shift 2: Coherence
Principal’s Role
• Ensure that teachers of the same content across grade levels allow for
discussion and planning to ensure coherence/threads of main ideas.
Principal’s Role
• Take on fluencies as a stand-alone CCSS aligned activity and build school
culture around them.
Mathematics Shift 3: Fluency
133
Mathematics Shift 4: Deep Understanding
Principal’s Role
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Allow teachers to spend time developing their own content knowledge.
2D, 2F, 2G, 3A,
3B
3B3
• Provide meaningful professional development on what student mastery
and proficiency really should look like at every grade level by analyzing
exemplary student work.
2F
2A2, 2B1
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
• Ensure that math has a place in science instruction.
1C, 2B, 2F
2B1
• Create a culture of math application across the school
1C, 2A, 2B, 2D,
2F
2A1
Mathematics Shift 5: Application
Principal’s Role
Mathematics Shift 6: Dual Intensity
Principal’s Role
• Reduce the number of concepts taught and manipulate the schedule so
that there is enough math class time for teachers to focus and spend time
on both fluency and application of concepts/ideas.
ISLLC 2008
Standards
Performance
Expectations
& Indicators
2B, 2D, 2E, 2F,
2G, 3A, 3B
2B1, 2B2, 2B3,
3B3
Note: Performance Expectations & Indicators (CCSSO, 2008b) have a much better alignment
with implementing the Common Core Principal Behaviors. CCSSO Performance Expectations
& Indicators make the ISLLC 2008 standards operational by presenting them as they might be
observed in practice – in different positions and at different points of a career.
Alignment and continuity with the ISLLC standards helps with phasing in new leadership system
components and preparing for policy transitions over time.
134
Will we be representing the same central concepts and ideals of leadership as ISLLC 2008? The
performance indicators describe what leaders do to carry out the leadership concepts and ideals
in each standard.
Key Question: 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?
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
Developed by Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education, New York ([email protected]),
October 4, 2011
Orr Elements
The purposes of assessment
Considerations
• Personnel management to make
consequential decisions
• Leadership development for
growth and improved practice
• Organizational change
NAESP/NASSP Framework
• To guide professional
development that builds the
capacity of principals and
improves schools
• To help districts and states
make important decisions
about leadership and principals’
continued employment
• Created by and for principals
• Results are relevant to the
improvement of principals’
current work
• Meaningful evaluation results
inform principals’ learning
and progress, regardless of
summative ratings of practice.
• An effective formative and
summative process is useful to
principals and evaluators for
creating a holistic description of
practice.
Who is assessed
• Principals only, or includes other
school and district leaders
• Differentiation based on
years of experience, level and
responsibilities
• Differentiated based on context
• Leadership practices
• Teacher effectiveness and
organizational conditions
• Student outcomes
• Context
• Accommodates necessary
differentiation based on
principals’ work and grade-level
responsibilities
• Professional Growth and
Learning
• Student Growth and
Achievement
• School Planning and Progress
• School Culture
• Professional Qualities and
Instructional Leadership
• Stakeholder Support and
Engagement
What is assessed
• Effective processes to evaluate
principal practice accommodate
local contexts, reflect a
principal’s years of experience
and are job-specific.
135
What sources of evidence are used
• Judgments (through surveys,
interviews or focus groups)
• Uses real time data
• Observations of principal
• classroom visits and site visits
• Documents and other evidence
• Portfolios and artifacts
How the assessment is conducted
• Frequency and timing
How evidence is valued
• Using leadership standards
against which to make
judgments
• Use of multiple measures
• Use of multiple measures
• Rating of individual sources of
evidence
• Weighting each source of
evidence when combining them
into a total score
• Generating a total score that
discriminates principals as
proficient or effective
What psychometric qualities are
maintained
• Content and construct validity
• Concurrent validity
• Predictive validity
• Reliability
How the assessment system is
implemented and operates
• Evaluator training and support
• Field testing the assessment
system before implementation
and developing local district
capacity
• Implementation and operations
of the assessment system
136
• Evaluation processes must
provide accurate, valid and
reliable information; and gather
performance data through
multiple sources
• Fair evaluations are transparent,
systematically applied to all
principals in a state or district
and place a high priority on
outcomes principals control
rather than those they have
limited or no ability to impact.
• Evaluation process must be
collaborative
• The quality of how principal
evaluations are conducted
might be even more important
than the content of what the
evaluations contain
• Principal support and postevaluation follow up
• Effective principal evaluation is
part of a comprehensive system
of support
• Evaluation of the assessment
system’s qualities,
implementation, use, and impact
• Decisions about continued
employment rely on multiple
years of evaluation data
• Feedback and support
mechanisms
• Effective evaluation systems
treat performance assessment
as a positive process that builds
principals’ capacity, not as a
pretext for discipline
Appendix G
Gap Analysis between ISLLC 2008 and the Principal Pipeline District Leader Standards
Denver Public
Schools
Cultural
and Equity
Leadership
Leads for equity
toward college
and career
readiness
Leads for culture
of empowerment,
continuous
improvement and
celebration
Charlotte
Mecklenburg
Public Schools
Gwinnett County
Public Schools
Human
Relations
Instructional
Leadership
Relationship
Building
The principal
fosters the
success of all
students by
facilitating the
development,
communication,
implementation,
and evaluation of
a shared vision
of learning that
reflects excellence
Conflict
Management
Effective
Two-Way
Communication
Prince George’s
County Public
Schools
Hillsborough County
Public Schools
New York City
Public Schools
Sets High
Expectations
for achievement
based on
individual tailoring
of instruction,
rigorous data
analysis and
evaluation
of effective
instructional
practices.
Instructional
Management
Personal
Leadership
Promote a culture
of achievement
for all students by
communicating and
implementing a
common vision and
mission that is shared
and supported by all
stakeholders.
Believes all
students can
achieve at
high levels.
Articulates a
clear vision
and goals for
high student
achievement.
Curriculum,
instruction,
Learning, and
Assessment
Work collaboratively to
develop and implement
an instructional
framework that is
data—driven and
research-based which
aligns curriculum with
national standards, best
instructional practices,
student learning and
quality assessments in
order to achieve results
on the school’s learning
goals.
Holds self
and others
accountable for
student learning.
Human Capital
Management
Data
Time for Students
and Teachers
Effective
Instruction
Use of Technology
and Data
High Expectations
Student
Achievement and
Growth
Instructional
Leadership
Leads for highquality, datadriven instruction
by building
the capacity of
teachers to lead
and perfect their
craft
(ELA Program
School Leaders):
Leads for effective
English Language
Acquisition
programming
Visionary
Distributive
Leadership
Leading Change
Innovation
Resource
Allocation
Results
Orientation/
Ownership of
Outcomes
Data Driven
Decisions
School Climate
The principal
fosters the
success of all
students by
advocating,
nurturing, and
sustaining a
positive and safe
school climate for
all stakeholders.
Builds a shared
vision, fosters
shared goals, and
communicates
high performance
expectations
Shared Purpose
School
Improvement Plan
Leading Change
Distributed
Leadership
Recruit, hire, develop,
evaluate and retain
highly qualified and
diverse personnel
through a system
of observation,
coaching, feedback
and differentiated
professional
development and
support to nurture a
high performing team.
Leads for the
academic and
social-emotional
success of
all students
(linguistically
diverse, students
with disabilities,
gifted and
talented,
historically underachieving students)
Strategic
Leadership
137
Human Resource
Leadership
Talent
Development
Human Resource
Administration
Identifies,
develops, retains
and dismisses
staff in alignment
with high
expectations for
performance
Coaching
The principal
fosters effective
human resources
administration
through the
selection,
induction,
support, and
retention
of quality
instructional
and support
personnel.
Applies teacher
and staff
performance
management
systems in a way
that ensures
a culture of
continuous
improvement,
support, and
accountability
Establish
Culture of High
Performance
Succession
Planning
Demonstrates a
commitment to
excellence, equity,
and innovation
Intentional and
Collaborative
School Culture
Equity
Culture of
Continuous
Improvement
Organizational
and Operational
Leadership
Develop and apply
a transparent,
collaborative system
for strategic decision
making that places top
priority on teaching
and learning, including
input from stakeholders
based on relevant and
accurate information.
Utilize effective and
appropriate oral,
written, and electronic
communication to
collaborate, build, and
maintain relationships
among students, staff,
families, community
partners, and district
staff to accomplish
school goals.
Identify and prioritize
system needs by
employing effective
resources, fiscal and
time management
techniques that create
a safe, inclusive and
equitable learning
environment.
Recognize and value
differences among
stakeholders that
support the diverse
needs of students and
maintain a multicultural
school environment that
is nurturing, validating,
and inclusive.
138
Demonstrate and
promote integrity,
fairness, equity and
social justice through
modeling emotional
intelligence, cultural
competence, and legal
compliance to fulfill the
expected obligations to
the students, the public
and the education
profession.
Curriculum and
Instruction
Strategic
Leadership
Personal Traits
Teacher
Evaluation
Leads the school’s
Vision, Mission
and Strategic
Goals to support
college readiness
for all students
Courage
The principal
conducts
meaningful,
timely, and
productive
evaluations
of teachers
and other
staff members
in order to
support ongoing
performance
effectiveness
and school
improvement.
Distributes
leadership to
inspire change
in support of
an empowered
school culture
Belief in every
child
Humility
Self Awareness
Grit/
Perseverance
Judgment
Ethical
Lifelong
Learning
Organizational
Leadership
Organizational
Management
Strategically
aligns people,
time and money
to drive student
achievement
The principal
fosters the
success of all
students by
supporting,
managing, and
overseeing
the school’s
organization,
operation, and
resources.
Ensures effective
communications
with and between
all staff and
stakeholders
External
Leadership
Actively
advocates for
members of the
school community
and effectively
engages family
and community
Demonstrates
professionalism
and continuous
professional
growth
Demonstrates
Human Resource
Leadership
Staff and
Community
Adult Learning
Recruitment and
Induction
Demonstrates
Managerial
Leadership
School Resources
and Budget
Conflict
Management and
Resolution
Communication
Policies and
Agreements
Communication
and Community
Relations
Demonstrates
Strong External
Leadership
The principal
fosters the
success of all
students by
collaborating
effectively with
stakeholders.
Family and
Community
Engagement
Resources and
Operations
Advocacy
Professionalism
The Principal’s
Role in Student
Achievement
The principal’s
leadership results
in acceptable,
measurable
progress based
on established
standards.
The principal
fosters the
success of all
students by
demonstrating
integrity, fairness,
and ethical
behavior.
139
Notes:
Denver Public Schools – Framework for Effective School Leadership Evidence Guide is very similar to
the InTASC Learning Progressions.
Prince George’s County – Innovation, Creativity, and Continuous Improvement; Leading Change;
Celebrating School Culture; Adult Learning; Recruitment and Induction; Evaluation are in addition to
ISLLC. Everything maps to ISLLC.
New York City School’s Leadership Competencies and checklist rubric – 5 point scale. Additional
language to ISLLC: welcomes and acts on performance feedback; develops school culture and practices
that rely on data to inform adult learning, professional development, and decision-making.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Leadership Framework – Leading Change, innovation, Coaching, Establish
Culture of High Performance, Succession Planning. Also includes personal traits: courage; belief in
every child; humility; self-awareness; grit/perseverance; judgment; ethical; and lifelong learning.
Hillsborough County – Very streamlined principal standards and competency model. Additional
language to ISLLC: Instructional leadership; Human Capital Management; Organizational and
Operational Leadership.
Gwinnett County – adds the standards: Teacher/Staff Evaluation and Professionalism. Gwinnett has
done an extensive analysis of nine principal performance tools in comparison to James Stronge’s
Qualities of Effective Principals. Additional language to ISLLC: Human Resource Administration; Teacher
Evaluation; and The Principal’s Role in Student Achievement. Recommends 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 ISLLC standards.
Other area missing in ISLLC: Professional Learning Communities.
140
Appendix H
National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals™ and ISLLC 2008 Map
SKILLS
1. Accomplished educational leaders continuously cultivate their understanding of leadership and the
change process to meet high levels of performance. (Leadership) ISLLC 1D
2. Accomplished educational leaders have a clear vision and inspire and engage stakeholders in
developing and realizing the mission. (Vision) ISLLC 1A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 6B,
3. Accomplished educational leaders manage and leverage systems and processes to achieve desired
results. (Management) ISLLC 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E
APPLICATIONS
4. Accomplished educational leaders act with a sense of urgency to foster a cohesive culture of
learning. (Culture) ISLLC 1A, 2A
5. Accomplished educational leaders are committed to student and adult learners and to their
development. (Learners and Learning) ISLLC 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I
6. Accomplished educational leaders drive, facilitate and monitor the teaching and learning process.
(Instruction) ISLLC 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I
DISPOSITIONS
7. Accomplished educational leaders model professional, ethical behavior and expect it from others.
(Ethics) ISLLC 5B
all. (Equity) ISLLC 2A, 2C, 5A, 5C, 5E
9. Accomplished educational leaders advocate on behalf of their schools, communities and profession.
(Advocacy) ISLLC 6A, 6B
Notes: National Board adds: leading change; emphasizes sense of urgency; adult learning; and a
cohesive culture of learning
8. Accomplished educational leaders ensure equitable learning opportunities and high expectations for
141
18
Cross Walk of National Board Standards for
Accomplished Principals and ISLLC 2008
National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals
(2010) NBPTS
Prepared for WV Leadership Preparation Meeting,
March 9, 2011 by Mary-Dean Barringer (CCSSO) and
Lori Wiggins (WV)
ISLLC 200818
Leadership Standards
(Effective-credential renewal)
“An educational leader promotes the success of every
student by…”
Standard 1: Lead with a sense of urgency and achieve
the highest results for all students and adults. They
build organizational capacity by developing leadership
in others. These dynamic forward-thinking principals
lead collaborative organizations that realize and sustain
positive change that enhances teacher practice and
improves student learning. They do this by
• Achieve results
• Leading by example
• Thinking in a forward fashion
• Thinking strategically
Collaborating with faculty and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and
needs and mobilizing community resources (ISLLC
4-Performance E&I Collaborating with Families and
Stakeholders)
• Collect, analyze data and information pertinent to
educational environment.
• Promote understanding, appreciation, and use of
community’s diverse resources.
• Build and sustain positive relationships with families,
caregivers and community partners.
• Working collaboratively
• Leading change
• Implementing ideas and changes strategically
Standard 2: Lead and inspires the learning community
to develop, articulate and commit to a shared and
compelling vision of the highest level of student
achievement and adult instructional practice… and
advance the mission through collaborate process that
focus and drive the organization toward that vision.
(Standard #2)
142
ISLLC #2F
Develop the instructional and leadership capacity of staff
Facilitating the development, implementation and
stewardship of a vision of learning shared and supported
by all stakeholders. (ISLLC #1-Performance E&I Vision
and Mission)
• Collaboratively develops and implements shared
vision
• Collaborative design and development
• Uses data …
• Implementation and realization
• Creates and implements action plans to achieve goals
• Reflection, public learning and recommitment
• Promotes continuous improvement
• Championing the vision and mission
Monitor and evaluate progress and revise plans.
18 ISLLC Standards have an accompanying guide titled Performance Expectations and Indicators for Education
Leaders (CCSSO, 2008b) that detail the observable actions and dispositions that support the standards. The way
the standard is stated in that document follows the standard # in the column heading.
Standard 3: Ensure that teaching and learning are
primary focus of the organization. As stewards of
learning, lead the implementation of rigorous, relevant
and balanced curriculum. Work collaboratively to
implement a common instructional framework that aligns
curriculum with teaching, assessment and learning and
provides an instructional quality that guides teacher
conversation, practice observation, evaluation and
feedback. Know a full range of pedagogy and mare
certain that all adults have the knowledge skills and
dispositions necessary to support student success.
(Standard III)
• Planning for learning
• Collaboratively implementing curricula
Advocating, nurturing, sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and
staff professional growth (ISLLC# 2=Performance E&I
Teaching and Learning)
• Create a comprehensive, rigorous, coherent curricular
program
• Supervise instruction
• Develop assessment and accountability systems
• Maximize time spent on quality instruction
• Promote use of most effective technologies that
support teaching and learning
Monitor/evaluate the impact of instructional program.
• Continuously monitoring, evaluating and adjusting
performance through a clear theory of action.
Standard 4: Ensure that each student and each adult
in the learning community is known and valued. These
principals develop systems so that individuals are
supporting socially, emotionally and intellectually in their
development, learning and achievement (Standard #IV)
Create structures that involve for:
• Students
• Understanding of child and adolescent development
• Understanding of home structures
• Scaffolding community support
• Celebrating accomplishments
Teachers
• Understanding human development and learning
theory
• Understanding of adults in broader context
• Scaffolding support
• Celebrating accomplishmentss
143
Standard 4: Ensure that each student and each adult
in the learning community is known and valued. These
principals develop systems so that individuals are
supporting socially, emotionally and intellectually in their
development, learning and achievement (Standard #IV)
Create structures that involve for:
• Students
• Understanding of child and adolescent development
• Understanding of home structures
• Scaffolding community support
Teachers
• Understanding human development and learning
theory
• Understanding of adults in broader context
• Scaffolding support
Standard 5: inspire and nurture a culture of high
expectations, where actions support the common
values and beliefs of the organization. These principals
build authentic, productive relationships that foster
a collaborative spirit, They honor the culture of the
students, adults and community, demonstrating respect
and ensuring equity. They create and maintain a
trusting and safe environment that promotes effective
adult practice and student learning (Standard #V)
ISLLC 4 also addresses this aspect of practice.
ISLLC 2a.
Nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust,
learning and high expectations.
(In addition to the bolded aspects, this standard
addresses rituals and behaviors that demonstrate
common values and beliefs)
Standard 6: Skillfully lead the design, development and
implementation of strategic management systems and
processes that actualize the vision and mission. These
principals lead the monitoring and adaptation of systems
and processes to ensure that they are effective and
efficient in support of a high-performing organization
focused on effective teaching and learning. (Standard #VI)
144
• Develop strategic management systems that reflect
the following steps:
o Design and development: plan
o Implementation: DO
o Monitoring: Check
o Continuous improvement: ACT
Ensuring management of organization, operation and
resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning
environment (ISLLC #3-Performance E&I- Managing
Organizational Systems and Safety)
• Monitor and evaluate the management and operation
systems
• Obtain, allocate, align and efficiently utilize human,
fiscal and technological resources.
• Promote and protect the welfare and safety of
students and staff
• Develop capacity for distributed leadership.
Ensure teacher and organizational time is focused to
support quality instruction and student learning.
Standard 7: Consistently demonstrate a high degree of
personal and professional ethics exemplified by justice,
integrity and equity. These principals establish a culture
in which exemplary ethical behavior is practiced by all
stakeholders (Standard #VII)
• Demonstrating personal and professional ethics
Establishing an ethical culture
Acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner
(ISLLC #5_Performance E&I Ethics and Integrity)
• Ensure system of accountability for every student
academic and social success
• Safeguard the values of democracy, equity and
diversity
• Consider and evaluate the potential moral and legal
consequences of decision-making.
Promote social justice and ensure that individual student
needs inform all aspects of schooling.
Standard 8: Effectively advocate internally and externally
to advance the organization’s vision and mission.
These principals strategically seek, inform and mobilize
influential educational, political and community leaders
to advocate for all students and adults in the learning
community. (Standard #VIII)
• Advocates for the organization and individual
Understanding, responding to, influencing the political,
social, economic, legal and cultural context
(ISLLC #6_Performance E&I The Education System)
• Advocate for children, families and caregivers
• Act to influence local, district, state and national
decisions affecting student learning
Advocating in a broader context.
Assess, analyze and anticipate emerging trends and
initiatives to adapt leadership strategies.
Standard 9: Are humble lead learners who make
their practice public and view their own learning as
a foundational part of school leadership. They are
reflective practitioners who build on their strengths and
identify areas for personal and professional growth. They
adapt their paradigm and practice to result in improved
student performance and enhanced teacher instruction
through reflective practices. (Standard #IX)
ISLLC 5.B
Model principals of self-awareness, reflective practice,
transparency and ethical behavior.
• Humility and continuous professional learning
• Personal reflection
• Reflective strategies
• Culture of reflection
Rejuvenation and recommitment
145
Appendix I
New Leaders Framework
ISLLC 2008
Learning and Teaching Category Map
• Curriculum aligned to both state and college-readiness standards
2B
• Consistent and quality classroom practices, routines, and instructional strategies
2D, 2F
• Utilization of diverse student-level data to drive instructional improvement
1B, 2E
• Pyramid of academic preventions and interventions
2H, 5A, 5E
Culture Category Map
• Clear School Mission and Values are focused on college success for every student
1A
• Adults translate the mission and values into behavioral expectations that include a
code of conduct
2A
• Adults create a culture of achievement and high expectations where all students are valued
• Families are purposefully engaged in the academic and social success of students
2A, 2C
4C
Aligned Staff Category Map
• Recruitment, Selection, and Placement of staff
3B
• Development of high-performing instructional leadership team
3D
• Monitoring and Management of individual staff performance
• Professional learning structures to drive instructional improvement
2D, 2F
2F
Operating and Systems Category Map
• Tracking of clear and focused school goals and strategy adjustment based on progress
146
3A, 4A
• Time use aligned with school-wide goals
3E
• Budget, external partnerships, and facilities aligned to strategic plan
3B
• Political context and school system relationships managed to ensure a focus on learning
6A, 6B
Personal Leadership Category Explanation
• Belief-based, goal-driven leadership
2A
• Culturally competent leadership
5E
• Interpersonal leadership
6A
• Adaptive Leadership
6C
• Resilient Leadership
3D
Notes on New Leaders Evaluation Process
•
New Leaders place greater emphasis on School Culture and Teacher Effectiveness
•
New vision of principal effectiveness – focus on increasing teacher effectiveness and improving
student-level outcomes
•
70% based on student and teacher effectiveness outcomes
•
30% based on leadership practices to accomplish those outcomes
•
New research – Principals as effective organization leaders (Grissom and Loeb, 2009) – role of
Human Capital Managers
•
New Leaders says that ISLLC is context-independent. Research and experience have shown
that effective leadership actions in schools in need of transformation are often substantially
different that effective leadership actions in other schools.
•
4 levels of performance are ideal for an evaluation system
•
Principal Evaluation Systems should be differentiated with respect to novice principals, school
level, and in response to a school’s stage of development.
147
Appendix J
STATE
CURRENT STATUS OF
EVALUATION
STRENGTHS &
CHALLENGES
SUPPORT FOR
PRINCIPALS
STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK
• Alabama is currently
implementing new formative
evaluation systems for teachers
and instructional leaders.
EDUCATEAlabama is the new
teacher evaluation system
and LEADAlabama is the new
instructional leader evaluation
systems. Both systems are
online and archive data each
year for purposes of continual
improvement.
• EDUCATEAlabama and
LEAD Alabama are designed
to build trust between teachers
and leaders, which has
been diminished by former
evaluation system. Giving
teachers and instructional
leaders ownership of their
practice and responsibility
for its improvement are goals
of the new systems as well.
The systems are based on
the idea that one should be
able to identify and target
areas requiring improvement
and be given the means to
improve, before being held
accountable for final results.
These systems have online
professional development
attached to each Standard and
Standard Indicator so that all
Alabama educators have access
to the means for improvement.
Professional development
offered include elearning
courses developed in the state
and also from the Iris Center at
Vanderbilt University.
• Both face-toface and online
training are ongoing.
Alabama has been
working to transform
leaders from an
administrative to
instructional leader
focus since 2004.
Much remains
to be done, but
progress has been
made. All university
principal preparation
programs were
closed and
redesigned over a
3 year process to
insure a focus on
instructional leader
preparation. The
dialogues between
every teacher and
his/her principal
has been the most
effective element of
EDUCATE Alabama
• Practitioners
from throughout
the state helped
design the new
systems. Multiple
surveys indicate that
Alabama educators
are pleased with
the systems. Several
examples of use
are located at
http://alex.state.
al.us/leadership/
evaluations.html
• Arkansas passed a teacher
evaluation law in April of 2011.
• Using Danielson framework
• The state has
operated pilots for
both teacher and
principal evaluation
systems. Feedback
and input have been
sought from those
districts in the pilot.
The state is in the
process of seeking
the most effective
and efficient manner
to provide training
to all principals and
teachers in the state in
regards to the teacher
evaluation system.
• When the law
was passed, there
was support by
all stakeholder
organizations.
All groups are
very cautious
about assigning a
percentage weight
to an assessment.
Groups feel that
given the inadequate
amount of research
on this topic, at this
time, this should come
in the near future, but
not at this time.
• How to measure student
growth with valid and reliable
measures in all grades and
subjects
• Requiring and
providing an intensive
training program.
• Responses have
been a mixed bag of
concerns about the
appropriate, valid and
reliable measures of
student growth
ALABAMA
• Charlotte Danielson’s 2011
version of Framework for
Teaching
ARKANSAS
148
ILLINOIS
• Arkansas is piloting a principal
evaluation system this school
year with ten school districts
• Illinois legislation that was
passed January 2010, regarding
performance evaluation. Illinois’
rules require multiple measures.
KENTUCKY
Strengths include a grassroots
effort involving teachers,
principals, superintendents,
parents, and education
partners coming together to
establish guiding principles,
common language and
understanding, as well as
collective agreement on the
purpose and intent of the
effectiveness system. The
system also offers an equitable
implementation of student
growth including assessed and
non-assessed content areas;
challenges including; how
student growth will be used
and weighted in the system,
ensuring equity in the nonassessed areas, development
of a comprehensive Teacher
of Record definition, principal
caseloads for conducting
annual evaluations, and the
careful but necessary paradigm
shift for instructional leaders
to offer professional support
and meaningful feedback to
teachers.
Each district is different
Strengths-Based on InTASC
Standards and local control;
Weaknesses-Local control
and there is only so much
influences the SEA can wield.
• The most recent and only
legislation we have is Senate
Bill 196 that states each local
school district must have a
teacher evaluation policy in
place. In the fall we completed
Phase I of the NH Task Force
on Effective Teaching and
the comprehensive report is
on the Dept. of Ed website.
We are now in Phase ii to be
completed in May with the
goal being the development
of guidelines for educator
evaluation, which builds on the
Phase I Report. The task force
has determined that multiple
measures will be used and that
student outcomes will be one
of the areas measured.
• We are still in the
development process.
The real challenges are
local control and the state
Legislature which has a
number of bills to undermine
public education including
doing away with the Dept. of
education and taking away
any rule-making authority
which is the only authority
that we have. The strengths
are that districts are looking
for some consistency and
a direction and we have a
Commissioner of Education
who committed to the
providing every student in
NH a the opportunity for a
quality education and is truly
leading the charge
MONTANA
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Support for principals The state will continue
to engage our
principals and district
administrators to
gather information to
support the transition
to the new system.
We are developing a
technology solution to
increase the efficiency
of the evaluation
process. The solution
provides teachers with
instructional resources,
formative assessments,
and professional
development resources
aligned to content
and/or instructional
practices. The state will
continue to engage our
principals and district
administrators to
gather information to
support the transition
to the new system.
We are developing a
technology solution to
increase the efficiency
of the evaluation
process. The solution
provides teachers with
instructional resources,
formative assessments,
and professional
development
resources aligned
to content and/or
instructional practices.
Educators have
been integral to the
design process and
supportive
• In the development
stage. Working to
make sure that there
are on-going updates
so that educators and
other stakeholders
are informed along
the way and am
working closely with
principals and the
principals association.
• We are still
developing the
system.
Framework- Professional Growth
and Effectiveness has 4 domains
with descriptors of performance
that reflect the standards on a
developmental scale; Teachers
and principals will be evaluated
by trained and certified
evaluators
Teachers will be evaluated with
multiple measures, including
student growth and formative
growth as a significant factor
No teacher’s or principal’s rating
or personnel decisions (e.g.,
effectiveness, dismissal, tenure)
can be based on one measure
alone
Currently in a field testing phase
with 54 volunteer districts to
refine the evaluation system
components, weights, and
process protocols
Will set weights for measures in
the fall of 2012
Will pilot the system, state-wide
in ‘13–’14
149
NEVADA
150
• In 2011 AB222 created the
No response
Teachers and Leaders Council
(TLC) and required that body
to submit recommendations to
the State Board of Education
concerning the adoption of
regulations for establishing a
statewide performance evaluation
system for teachers and site based
administrators by June 1, 2012;
Requires the information maintained
in the state automated system of
accountability related to the results
of pupil achievement to account
for at least 50 percent, but not
be used as the sole criterion, in
evaluating the performance of an
individual teacher, paraprofessional
or other employee; Develop
and recommend to the State
Board a plan, including duties
and associated costs, for the
development and implementation
of the performance evaluation
system by the Department anxd
school districts; Consider the role of
professional standards for teachers
and administrators, as it determines
appropriate, and develop a plan
for recommending the adoption
of such standards by the State
Board. It requires the State Board
to consider the recommendations
made by the Council and to adopt
regulations establishing a statewide
performance evaluation system by
June 1, 2013. It specifies that each
school district shall implement
a performance evaluation policy
for teachers and administrators
that complies with the system
adopted through regulations by
the State Board not later than the
2013-2014 school year. Changes to
NRS 391.3125, 391.3127 specifies
that the statewide performance
evaluation system must require
that an employee’s overall
performance is determined to be:
highly effective, effective, minimally
effective, or ineffective. The TLC
currently has drafted purposes and
goals of the evaluation framework
but they are not finalized. Most
of the districts are currently using
some adaptation of the Charlotte
Danielson observation tool.
No response
No response
NORTH
CAROLINA
• One clear strength of
the NCEES is simply that
it has been in place for
several years; as a result,
educators are familiar with
the standards and processes.
The addition of the sixth
and eighth standards further
strengthens the NCESS
by explicitly including
student growth. Another
strength of the system is
its aggressive policy on
effectiveness. Educators
in NC cannot compensate
for weakness in one area
of evaluation by strong
performance in another.
Educators must meet certain
performance levels on
EACH evaluation standard
in order to be considered
effective. Lastly, the system
is statewide, which allows for
comparisons across schools
and districts as the State
Board of Education and
NC Department of Public
Instruction work to ensure
that every student has an
effective educator. As with
many evaluation instruments,
NC has evidence of weak
correlations between
student growth and teacher
evaluation ratings, a key data
point used in the creation of
the new standards. The State
and districts need additional
training to strengthen the
fidelity of implementation
of the observation-based
standards. The addition of
a student growth standard
requires the measurement of
student growth for all areas,
including currently nontested grades and subjects.
The design of measures of
student growth for these
areas is a significant effort on
the part of the State, but one
that has already begun.
• When the NCEES
was originally
introduced, the NC
Department of Public
Instruction provided
online and inperson professional
development.
Currently, there
are regular online
webinars for
principals and human
resource directors.
In addition, fifteen
Race to the Topfunded professional
development leaders
work remotely from
across the state; they
provide in-person
training to principals.
The NC Department
of Public Instruction
has also developed
a Professional
Development
repository where
principals and
teachers can access
online learning
opportunities aligned
to specific standards
of the NCEES. The
Department is in the
final stages of hiring
for a full-time staff
member to provide
in-person and virtual
support to principals
as they evaluate
teachers.
• The design process
for NCEES took
several years and
involved hundreds
of stakeholders,
including many
teachers. Teachers
view the instrument
as a meaningful
growth tool, but
worry about how their
areas of weakness
might reflect on
tenure and other
human capital
decisions. Principals
express a need for
additional training,
but feel that the
tool is a powerful
way to produce
better outcomes
for students. The
addition of student
growth standards
has caused some
concerns, but NC has
worked with a wide
array of stakeholders
to ensure that the
new standards were
added in a fair and
transparent manner.
• North Carolina school
districts use the statewide
North Carolina Educator
Evaluation System (NCEES).
The NCEES includes evaluation
rubrics and processes
for teachers, principals
(and assistant principals),
instructional central office staff
members, and superintendents.
While school districts may
elect to use the central office
and superintendent evaluation
instruments, the instruments
for teachers and principals must
be used. The North Carolina
General Assembly does have
some basic legislation related
to teacher evaluation, but the
majority of policies related to
this area come from the State
Board of Education. Educator
evaluation in North Carolina
has two purposes. Firstly, of
course, it is a performance
evaluation process to ensure
that educators, like any
professionals, are completing
their jobs in a satisfactory
manner. Secondly, evaluation
is a growth process in
which all educators strive
to improve their craft. The
evaluation process fosters
critical conversations
between “evaluators” and
“evaluatees” to spurn that
For teachers, there are six
evaluation standards. Each
standard (except the sixth) is
compromised of a number of
distinct elements. 1. Teachers
demonstrate leadership. 2.
Teachers establish a respectful
environment for a diverse
population of students. 3.
Teachers know the content they
teach. 4. Teachers facilitate
learning for their students.
5. Teachers reflect on their
practice. 6. Teachers contribute
to the academic success of
students (Added summer 2011).
151
• Ohio does have legislation
requiring educator evaluation
(teacher and principal). The
purpose of the educator
evaluation is to serve as a
growth model. The two basic
frameworks included are
Student Growth Measures
(50%) and Teacher Performance
(50%).
• Strength is the legislative
language in support
including that is based
on Ohio’s Standards for
the Teaching Profession
and the Ohio Standards
for Principals. The shift
from a compliance driven
evaluation system and the
move towards a professional
growth model. Requiring
every educator to be
evaluated every year is both
a strength and a challenge.
Provides a touch on the
educator every year, but
the capacity to complete
the evaluation system is the
challenge. Challenges are
determining student growth
measures that are accurate,
reliable, consistent, etc. for
all educators.
• We are in the
development phase
for a credentialing
process. We see the
evaluators attending
a 3-day training
and then having an
online credentialing
component. We
are working with
associations and
other stakeholders to
identify the support
needed to effectively
implement.
• As part of our
pilot of the teacher
evaluation system this
year, we have heard
that the evaluators
really enjoy the
discussions with
teachers focused on
improving practice.
At the same time as
much as they enjoy
that part of this
process that is what
takes time and that
is what the concerns
are regarding the
time and capacity
to complete this
annually for every
teacher.
Districts are subject to the
parameters of the statute but
can develop their own systems;
A state law established Sept.
2011 now calls for a statewide
evaluation based on three
basic metrics; student growth,
instructional effectiveness,
and parent/student input.
These three elements are
under development and will be
piloted in the 2012-13 school
year. Utah Effective Teaching
Standards and Utah Education
Leadership Standards outlined
in state law. A model system is
being developed.
Strengths - the use
of the Utah Effective
Teaching Standards
and Utah Education
Leadership Standards with
accompanying rubrics,
research and tools of
support. These standards
are based on the Model
Core Teaching Standards
and ISLLC standards and will
be used for both formative
and summative purposes.
Challenges - are around
implementation statewide,
using best professional
learning practices and little
to no funding; as well as
ensuring all measures are
valid and reliable. Finding
valid, reliable, and equitable
practices for student growth
models between tested and
non -tested subjects is the
challenge.
Principal Supports –
Statewide tools such
as digital exemplars
of best practice
aligned to the Utah
Effective Teaching
Standards, electronic
observation
tools (as well as
pencil and paper),
comprehensive
professional learning
platforms, and all
the required tools
will be available
during pilot and
adjusted based on
pilot analysis. Each
district will designate
an evaluation
“facilitator” who
will participate in a
cadre led by USOE to
build their capacity
in leading educator
evaluation efforts.
Training models will
be developed for use
by LEAs who adopt
the model system as
well as online training
modules developed
for the various tools.
Has full support
of all stakeholder
groups. Principals
have been involved
in the development
committees. Leaders
are expressing
concern that
growth models
could undermine
this collaboration.
A recent two-year
pilot on pay for
performance found
that collaboration
actually increased
when teacher
performance based
on student growth
was implemented.
OHIO
UTAH
152
• The Wisconsin State
Legislature passed
Act 215 in 2009, which
calls for a teacher and
principal evaluation
system.
WISCONSIN
No response
No response
• The Design Team established the
guiding principles for the Wisconsin
Framework for Educator Effectiveness,
which reflects the strengths of the
proposed evaluation system. The
following guiding principles are
found in the Wisconsin Framework
for Educator Effectiveness (p.3). The
ultimate goal of education is student
learning. Effective educators are
essential to achieving that goal for all
students. We believe it is imperative
that students have highly effective
teams of educators to support them
throughout their public education.
We further believe that effective
practice leading to better educational
achievement requires continuous
improvement and monitoring.
A strong evaluation system for
educators is designed to provide
information that supports decisions
intended to ensure continuous
individual and system effectiveness.
The system must be well articulated,
manageable, reliable, and
sustainable. The goal of this system
is to provide students with highly
qualified and effective educators
who focus on student learning. An
educator evaluation system must
deliver information that: i. Guides
effective educational practice that
is aligned with student learning and
development. ii. Documents evidence
of effective educator practice. iii.
Documents evidence of student
learning. iv. Informs appropriate
professional development. v. Informs
educator preparation programs.
vi. Supports a full range of human
resource decisions. vii. Is credible,
valid, reliable, comparable, and
uniform across districts. Currently,
the DPI is working with stakeholder
representatives to develop the
state model. At this point in time,
challenges include an aggressive
timeline to develop the state model
evaluation system, the pilot process,
a training program for evaluators and
educators, and the evaluation process
for the pilot. Once the state model
is adopted, other challenges will
become clear and may be similar to
other states’ experience.
153
Appendix K
Mapping of the ISLLC 2008 to the ELCC Standards19
Standards
ELCC BUILDING LEVEL
STANDARDS
1
ELCC Standard 1.0: A
building-level education
leader applies knowledge
that promotes the
success of every student
by collaboratively
facilitating the
development, articulation,
implementation, and
stewardship of a shared
school vision of learning
through the collection
and use of data to
identify school goals,
assess organizational
effectiveness, and
implement school plans
to achieve school goals;
promotion of continual
and sustainable school
improvement; and
evaluation of school
progress and revision of
school plans supported by
school-based stakeholders.
An education leader
promotes the success
of every student
by facilitating the
development,
articulation,
implementation,
and stewardship of
a vision of learning
that is shared and
supported by all
stakeholders.
ELCC 1.1: Candidates
understand and can
collaboratively develop,
articulate, implement, and
steward a shared vision of
learning for a school.
A. Collaboratively
develop and
implement a shared
vision and mission
understand and can
collect and use data to
identify school goals,
effectiveness, and
implement plans to achieve
school goals.
2
3
B. Collect and use
data to identify goals,
effectiveness,
and promote
organizational
learning
C. Create and
implement plans to
achieve goals
understand and can
promote continual
and sustainable school
improvement.
D. Promote
continuous and
sustainable
improvement
understand and can
evaluate school progress
and revise school plans
supported by school
stakeholders.
E. Monitor and
evaluate progress
and revise plans
19
154
ISLCC standards (2008)
E. Develop
assessment and
accountability
systems to
monitor student
progress
This crosswalk was developed by Terry Orr ([email protected]), September 2012
4
5
6
that promotes the
success of every student
by sustaining a school
culture and instructional
program conducive to
student learning through
collaboration, trust, and
a personalized learning
environment with high
expectations for students;
creating and evaluating a
comprehensive, rigorous
and coherent curricular
and instructional school
program; developing
and supervising the
instructional and leadership
capacity of school
staff; and promoting
the most effective and
appropriate technologies
to support teaching and
learning within a school
environment.
An education
leader promotes
the success of
every student
by advocating,
nurturing, and
sustaining a
school culture
and instructional
program conducive
to student
learning and
staff professional
growth.
understand and can
sustain a school culture
and instructional
program conducive to
student learning through
collaboration, trust, and
a personalized learning
environment with high
expectations for students
A. Nurture and
sustain a culture of
collaboration, trust,
learning, and high
expectations
understand and can
create and evaluate a
comprehensive, rigorous,
and coherent curricular
and instructional school
program.
understand and can
promote the most
effective and appropriate
technologies to support
teaching and learning in a
school environment.
B. Create a
comprehensive,
rigorous, and
coherent curricular
program
I. Monitor and
evaluate the impact
of the instructional
program
D. Supervise
instruction
F. Develop the
instructional and
leadership capacity
of staff
H. Promote the
use of the most
effective and
appropriate
technologies to
support teaching
and learning
understand and can
develop and supervise the
instructional and leadership
capacity of school staff.
C. Create a
personalized and
motivating learning
environment for
students
155
that promotes the success
of every student by
ensuring the management
of the school organization,
operation, and resources
through monitoring
and evaluating the
school management and
operational systems;
efficiently using human,
fiscal, and technological
resources in a school
environment; promoting
and protecting the
welfare and safety of
school students and staff;
developing school capacity
for distributed leadership;
and ensuring that teacher
and organizational time is
focused to support highquality instruction and
student learning.
156
An education
leader
promotes the
success of
every student
by ensuring
management
of the
organization,
operation, and
resources for a
safe, efficient,
and effective
learning
environment.
understand and can
monitor and evaluate
school management and
operational systems.
A. Monitor and
evaluate the
management
and
operational
systems
understand and can
efficiently use human,
fiscal, and technological
resources to manage school
operations.
B. Obtain,
allocate, align,
and efficiently
utilize human,
fiscal, and
technological
resources
understand and can
promote school-based
policies and procedures
that protect the welfare
and safety of students and
staff within the school.
C. Promote
and protect
the welfare
and safety of
students and
staff
D. Develop
the capacity
for distributed
leadership
understand and can
develop school capacity for
distributed leadership.
understand and can ensure
teacher and organizational
time focuses on supporting
high-quality school
instruction and student
learning.
G. Maximize
time spent
on quality
instruction
E. Ensure
teacher and
organizational
time is focused
to support
quality
instruction
and student
learning
of every student by
collaborating with faculty
and community members,
responding to diverse
community interests and
needs, and mobilizing
community resources on
behalf of the school by
collecting and analyzing
information pertinent
to improvement of the
school’s educational
environment; promoting
an understanding,
appreciation, and use
of the diverse cultural,
social, and intellectual
resources within the school
community; building
and sustaining positive
school relationships with
families and caregivers;
and cultivating productive
school relationships with
community partners.
An education leader
promotes the success
of every student
by collaborating
with faculty and
community members,
responding to
diverse community
interests and needs,
and mobilizing
community
resources.
understand and can
collaborate with faculty
and community members
by collecting and analyzing
information pertinent
to the improvement of
the school’s educational
environment.
A. Collect and
analyze data
and information
pertinent to
the educational
environment
understand and can
mobilize community
resources by promoting
an understanding,
appreciation, and use of
diverse cultural, social, and
intellectual resources within
the school community.
B. Promote
understanding,
appreciation, and use of
the community’s diverse
cultural, social,
understand and can
respond to community
interests and needs by
building and sustaining
positive school
relationships with families
and caregivers.
C. Build and
sustain positive
relationships
with families and
caregivers
understand and can
respond to community
interests and needs by
building and sustaining
productive school
relationships with
community partners.
D. Build and
sustain productive
relationships
with community
partners
157
158
of every student by acting
with integrity, fairness,
and in an ethical manner
to ensure a school system
of accountability for every
student’s academic and
social success by modeling
school principles of selfawareness, reflective
practice, transparency,
and ethical behavior as
related to their roles within
the school; safeguarding
the values of democracy,
equity, and diversity within
the school; evaluating the
potential moral and legal
consequences of decision
making in the school; and
promoting social justice
within the school to ensure
that individual student
needs inform all aspects of
schooling.
An education
leader
promotes the
success of
every student
by acting
with integrity,
fairness, and
in an ethical
manner.
understand and can act
with integrity and fairness
to ensure a school system
of accountability for every
student’s academic and
social success.
A. Ensure
a system of
accountability
for every
student’s
academic and
social success
understand and can model
principles of self-awareness,
reflective practice,
transparency, and ethical
behavior as related to their
roles within the school.
B. Model
principles of
self-awareness,
reflective
practice,
transparency,
and ethical
behavior
understand and can
safeguard the values of
democracy, equity, and
diversity within the school.
understand and can
evaluate the potential
moral and legal
consequences of decision
making in the school.
C. Safeguard
the values of
democracy,
equity, and
diversity
D. Consider
and evaluate
the potential
moral and legal
consequences
of decisionmaking
understand and can
promote social justice
within the school to ensure
that individual student
needs inform all aspects of
schooling.
E. Promote
social justice
and ensure
that individual
student needs
inform all
aspects of
schooling
of every student by
understanding, responding
to, and influencing the
larger political, social,
economic, legal, and
cultural context through
advocating for school
students, families, and
caregivers; acting to
influence local, district,
state, and national
decisions affecting
student learning in a
school environment; and
anticipating and assessing
emerging trends and
initiatives in order to adapt
school-based leadership
strategies.
An education
leader
promotes
the success
of every
student by
understanding,
responding
to, and
influencing the
political, social,
economic,
legal, and
cultural
context.
understand and can
advocate for school
students, families, and
caregivers.
A. Advocate
for children,
families, and
caregivers
understand and can act
to influence local, district,
state, and national
decisions affecting student
learning in a school
environment.
C. Assess,
analyze, and
anticipate
emerging
trends and
initiatives in
order to adapt
leadership
strategies
understand and can
anticipate and assess
emerging trends and
initiatives in order to adapt
school-based leadership
strategies.
B. Act to
influence local,
district, state,
and national
decisions
affecting
student
learning
159
Appendix L
March 2013
Please see the following URL for the full set of findings from the Principal Evaluation survey here:
http://www.cgcs.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=312&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-
848f-a8b4987d588f&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=895&PageID=257
160
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-1431
voice: 202.336.7000 | fax: 202.408.8072

Standards for Educational Leaders - Council of Chief State School

Transcription

Similar documents

Ben Vaske – Unique approach of basic skills

Intro to POPEI - Handout

Sin título-1

File

KZNDoE Service Excellence Award 2011

Web-Based Context-Aware Science Learning

Registered TRAIN Leaners in the United States

Page 1 L2 LITERACY: UNIT 2 E-TIVITY 3: PLANNING READING

Sort it out!

haybrook college