This article argues that existing accountability standards for educational leaders are inadequate to accommodate the diverse contextual realities in which they must function. Two crucial questions are raised: “What philosophical views of educational leadership will adequately meet the demands of a rapidly changing world?” and “How should such leadership be assessed?” We explore ways to reframe perspectives of leadership accountability by contrasting the paradigms of organizations as machines and organizations as open systems with their applications in educational leadership. We also critique existing models of leadership assessment and propose an open systems framework for school leadership and accountability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrymanA. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In CleggS., HardyC., & NordW. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 276–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
DaftR. L., & LengelR. H. (1998). Fusion leadership.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
3.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
4.
EnglishF. (2000). Pssssst! What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required to be accepted on faith and enforced by authority? [Answer: A religion, aka the ISLLC standards.]International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory & Practice, 3(2), 159–167.
5.
FosterW. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration.Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
6.
FullanM. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6–10.
7.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
HeifetzR. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
9.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders. (1996). Adopted by full convention November 2, 1996. Available: www.ccsso.org/isllc1.html.
10.
LeithwoodK., & AitkenR. (1995). Making schools smarter: A system for monitoring school and district progress.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
MarshallS. P. (1995, January). The vision, meaning, and language of educational transformation. The School Administrator, 8–15.
12.
MurphyJ. (2000). A response to English. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory & Practice, 3(4), 411–414.
13.
MurphyJ., YffL., & ShipmanN. (2000). Implementation of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 17–39.
14.
PetersonP. L., McCartheyS. J., & ElmoreR. F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119–153.
15.
PreskillH. H., & TorresR. (1999). Evaluation inquiry for learning in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
RostJ. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century.Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
ScottW. R., & MeyerJ. W. (Eds.) (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
SengeD. A. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday.
19.
SergiovanniT. (1993, April). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of Division A, American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
20.
SnyderKarolyn, Acker-HocevarM., & SnyderKristen (2000). Living on the edge of chaos: Leading schools into the global age.Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality.
21.
StarrattR. J. (1993). The drama of leadership.London: Falmer.
22.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization.A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, trans. New York: Free Press.
23.
WheatleyM. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
