The Unintended Consequences of a Standardized Knowledge Base in Advancing Educational Leadership Preparation

Abstract

Background: The quest for a “knowledge base” in educational administration resulting in the construction of national standards for preparing school leaders has brought with it an unexpected downside. Purpose: It is argued that instead of raising the bar for preparing educational leaders, the standards have lowered them, first by embracing only a limited set of the actual responsibilities of school leaders, resulting in programmatic reductionism, and permitting the licensing of school leaders at sites outside the purview of the university, by definition a form of deprofessionalization. The standards also assume the existence of a static knowledge base tied to a static social system. Current skill sets contained in the standards are in their essence antichange and antidemocratic. Conclusions: The major assumption that must be questioned is the notion or requirement of a stable knowledge base that is a political necessity in accreditation and licensing practices but the hallmark of a dead field of studies empirically.

Equitable leadership on the ground: Converging on high-leverage practices

“…Nor as Donmoyer and others have argued do we believe a singular, uncontested, normalized knowledge base is warranted or possible (e.g., Anderson et al, 2002;Donmeyer, 1999;English, 2006;Littrell & Foster, 1995;Scheurich, 1995). Rather, as Scheurich (1995) has argued, our goal is to trigger alternative forms of discourse and action focused on improving the lives and outcomes of nondominant students.…”

Leadership Standards: Marginalizing Diversity

“…Using my own variation of an argument advanced by English (2003English ( , 2006English ( , 2008, I argue against the notion of leadership standards in general, but do not review individually the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards or the Principal Quality Practice Guideline (PQPG) that may soon become a requirement in Alberta. Common concerns related to leadership standards might include the static and arbitrary nature of the relevant body of knowledge, the reductionist approach taken in defining it, and the discounting of judgment and experience in assessment for accreditation.…”

“…English (2006) asserts the ISLLC standard has "not only proven detrimental to the profession generally, and the professoriate specifically, but that it has actually lowered the standards for leadership preparation" (p. 462). Why?…”

“…Foucault (1979) has said "each society has its regime of truth, its "general politics" of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true" (p. 73). English (2006) has also said once a knowledge base is established by political means, it is difficult to change and "true" by definition. What does this mean for educational leadership in relation to democratic values and diversity?…”

Research Courses in Educational Leadership Programs: Relevance in an Era of Accountability

“…In the United States, national research reports have focused on a need to improve school leadership preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007;Levine, 2005), while scholars in the field of education leadership have emphasized that preparation program improvement is essential to overall school improvement (Murphy, 1999(Murphy, , 2002Scribner & Bredeson, 1997). Furthermore, education leadership researchers have suggested that conventional principal preparation programs were not aligned with the knowledge, skills, and behaviors required by principals to function effectively on a day-to-day basis (English, 2006;Fossey & Shoho, 2006;Hess & Kelly, 2007). In general, preparation programs for school administrators have been criticized for being deficient in several areas, including recruitment of quality candidates, collaboration between university faculty and practitioners, and relevant curriculum (Jackson & Kelley, 2002).…”