Preparing leaders for wicked problems? How the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice

Abstract

The past 20 years have seen a shift in school leaders’ work that can best be characterized by an increasing complexity in expectations and greater demands for accountabilities. Educational leadership preparation programs and professional associations responded to these shifts, in part, with the development and proliferation of standards for both pre-service (ELCC and NELP) and practicing (ISLLC and PSEL) educational leaders. Both sets of standards have undergone significant revision in the last five years, largely in response to shifts in the work required of school administrators in today’s 21st century schools. However, what remains an open empirical question is whether the leadership standards are robust and pragmatic enough to tackle the various educational issues that school leaders face. In other words, do various school leadership standards prepare and assess school administrators appropriately? Using the wicked problems framework, we examine the extent to which the revised PSEL and NELP standards capture the challenging work required for school leaders to act as inclusive leaders and “equity-oriented change agents” (Maxwell, Locke, Scheurich, 2013, p. 1). We utilize qualitative content analysis (Weber, 1990) to analyze the content of the leadership standards, focusing in particular on the ways those standards represent evolving conceptions of equity and justice. These analyses suggest that although both sets of standards have changed considerably from their predecessors, they may not go far enough to help leaders determine how to implement the proper administrative authority to solve complex issues. This is particularly true as it relates to the persistent, wicked equity problems facing our schools.

A scoping review of problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003–2019)

“…The research shows that, over the past 17 years, scholars worldwide have documented principals’ problems and accumulated evidence indicating that the role of principals continues to be as challenging as described at the turn of the century (Cooley and Shen, 2000; Ferrandino, 2001; Hobson et al, 2003; Murphy, 1993). Furthermore, it seems that school leaders are nowadays expected to do even more than before (Farley et al, 2019).…”

Principal evaluation in the United States: A national review of state statutes and regulations

“…By 2014, 36 states had adopted laws requiring principals to receive regular evaluations of their performance (Superville, 2014). However, with notable increases in expectations for principals, specifically, in instructional and equity-oriented leadership (Farley et al, 2019), attention to the role expectations of principals as well as the evaluation of such expectations has continued in the United States and across the globe (e.g., Díaz-Delgado & Garcia-Martinez, 2019;Fuller et al, 2015;Lambert & Bouchamma, 2019;Larochelle-Audetet al, 2019;Liu et al, 2017;Rivero et al, 2019;Williams, 2015).…”

Redesigning University Principal Preparation Programs: A Systemic Approach for Change and Sustainability — Full Report (Volume 3, Part 1)

“…Principals' roles as instructional leaders have grown more important over time. Principals must know how to meet the needs of diverse learners in an increasingly diverse population and address technology in schools (Farley, Childs, and Johnson, 2019;Richardson et al, 2016;Riehl, 2000). More than just managers, principals have become change agents, driven in part by the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Committee on Excellence in Education, 1983) and the site-based management movement in the 1980s (Fullan, 2001;Goodwin, Cunningham, and Eagle, 2005;Tintoré et al, 2020).…”

“…More than just managers, principals have become change agents, driven in part by the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Committee on Excellence in Education, 1983) and the site-based management movement in the 1980s (Fullan, 2001;Goodwin, Cunningham, and Eagle, 2005;Tintoré et al, 2020). Federal policy under the two most recent reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind in 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, held districts-and by extension, principals-accountable for improved student academic outcomes (Farley, Childs, and Johnson, 2019). Principals' responsibilities have extended beyond academics.…”