0.4 O'hern, b., schaming mcniff, s., brogan, b., & D’onofrio-de

Introduction

In Leading to Learn, a recent report funded by the Wallace Foundation, Olson calls attention to the need for traditional leadership training programs to “focus less on creating efficient managers” and more on “preparing individuals who can lead a school to higher student achievement” (2007, p.6). This observation comes at a time when school leadership training programs have been under increased scrutiny (Harchar, 2006). In perhaps the most notable of criticisms, Levin (2005) claimed that the quality of most leadership preparation programs ranges from “inadequate to appalling” (p. 24). Setting aside the argument of whether these criticisms are fair, it is certain that university leadership preparation programs must rethink their purpose and mission. Standards and accountability, a dominant force in the PK-12 environment where most students in educational administration programs work, is quickly becoming the expectation in higher education preparations as well. Designing, implementing, and evaluating a standards-based school leadership program raises important questions and presents special challenges to traditional leadership training programs.

The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), formed in 1994, is comprised of many of the players who have a stake in educational leadership including many states, professional organizations, and universities. This consortium has developed a common set of standards that are having significant influence in school leadership training programs, licensure, and candidate assessment (Hessel&Holloway, 2002). The six ISLLC standards focus on the following: (a) developing a shared vision within schools; (b) creating cultures that support learning; (c) ensuring safe, efficient, and effective learning; (d) collaborating with the broad community; (e) acting in a fair and ethical fashion; (f) understanding the socioeconomic, legal, political and cultural contexts of schools. These standards are useful in assessing the capacity of current and prospective administrators to integrate formal knowledge with performance and reflective practice (Hoyle, 2004).