The purpose of this study is to illustrate empirically the educative power associated with developing leadership standards in contrast to the miseducative dispositions associated with both implementation and policy-making. Those leaders “enmeshed in the work” experienced the joys of learning, yet when their task was completed, they foresaw a predictable, if not cynical, future for the standards. Specifically, standards’ development was characterized by a fluidity of local and contextualized meanings. Once written, however, the standards became fixed and distant, to be folded into current practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AudiR. (Ed.) (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy.Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
BodoneF., & AddieK. (1999, April). Teaching in a standards-based system: How teachers’ voices can influence policy, preparation, and professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 540)
4.
BogotchI. (2000, April). Reclaiming pedagogy in national standards for educational leaders. Unpublished manuscript submitted for review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, LA.
5.
DeweyJ. (1948 [1920]). Reconstruction in philosophy.New York: Mentor Books.
6.
ElmoreR. (1999–2000, Winter). Building a new structure for school leadership. American Educator, 6, 8, 10–13, 42–44.
7.
FullanM., & StieglebauerS. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
GergenK. (1999). An invitation to social construction.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
GlassT. (1999). An old dog looks at a new reality. AASA Professor, 23(1), 1–3.
10.
HalpinA. (1966). Theory and research in administration.New York: Macmillan.
11.
Louisiana State Department of Education. (1997, April). Report of the local personnel evaluation committee.
12.
Louisiana State Department of Education. (1998a, May 4). Strengthening educational leadership in Louisiana.School Leadership Development Task Force.
13.
Louisiana State Department of Education. (1998b, June). Standards for school principals in Louisiana.
McLauglinM. (1989). The Rand change agent study ten years later: Macro perspectives & micro realities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 085)
16.
OsgoodC. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237.
17.
OsgoodC., SociG., & TannenbaumP. (1957). The measurement of meaning.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
18.
PageM., & MarloweB. (2000, December 13). Battered-teacher syndrome: Using standards implementation as a weapon. Education Week, 20(15), 43, 46.
19.
PopkewitzT. (2000). The denial of change in educational change: Systems of ideas in the construction of national policy and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 17–29.
20.
ShipmanN., & MurphyJ. (1996, November 2). Preface. In Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders (pp. 5–8). Washington, DC: State School Officers.
21.
TaylorD., & St. JohnE. (1993). Limitations of district initiated reform: A study of a major urban reform initiative. (ERIC Document ED 358 231)
22.
Van MeterE., & MurphyJ. (1997, July). Using ISLLC standards to strengthen preparation programs in school administration. Paper prepared for the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Council of Chief State School Officers.
23.
WhiteheadA. N. (1929). The aims of education.New York: Macmillan.
