For many, a shift in professional standards for school administrators might be proverbial "back page" news. Think again, especially for those who recognize that in and across our school systems there has been little understanding of the connection between leading for reform and reforming those who help to lead the organizations where literally millions of service providers are in place nationally - our public schools.
As a central office administrator over the past 10 years, I found it comforting that the standards for leadership varied little from year to year. My comfort level with such status quo standards, however, became greatly diminished as I learned more (and more) about the nature of trauma on young learners, the ongoing and often cumulative affects of trauma on adolescent learners, and the profound implications of the ACE Study for all educators - including administrators. I wondered to myself, "How long will it be before the professional standards by which many school leaders are evaluated will reflect what we now know research tells us about the importance of understanding social and emotional learning?"
I now have my answer. Consider what has been posted in EdWeek's online format (Sept 26, 2014):
A newly updated set of standards for school leaders—the first extensive review of the guidelines in six years—heavily emphasizes instructional leadership and focuses on the role of principals and other administrators in addressing factors outside of the classroom that impact student achievement.
The draft standards, known as the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards—or ISLLC—describe what principals, assistant principals, superintendents, and other district heads should know, and the critical competencies they should demonstrate, in order to run schools and school systems that graduate students who are ready for college and the workforce.
Spearheaded by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Policy Board for Educational Administration, the "refreshed" standards released last week are meant to ensure that "the current roles of leaders as well as the current research are reflected," said Michelle D. Young, the executive director of the University Council for Educational Administration. Ms. Young, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, also serves on the National Leadership Preparation Standards Committee.
Source: http://www.edweek.org/ew/artic...erstandards.h34.html
(note: emphasis added)
This is an important development and one that might actually get lost amid so many sound bytes swirling around Common Core implementation and in cases where states have opted out of the Common Core. While many are engaging in debate about factors related to implementing (or not) the Common Core State Standards, one thing is clear: leaders must provide leadership in creating a learning culture where each student is known, supported emotionally and socially as well as academically regardless of the academic learning standards adopted by any particular state. The message is clear - states may opt out of the Common Core but as individual leaders the professional expectation is to lead others toward a culture of care. There is no opting out of that.
Consider the implications of the ISLLC Standard #5:
While the revised school leaders’ standards focus heavily on instructional and ethical leadership, they also lay out in greater specificity an expanded role for principals and others in improving school climate, engaging the school community, and recognizing and embracing cultural diversity. Here are two of the expanded areas, as they appear in the draft document:
Standard 5: Community of Care for Students
An educational leader promotes the success and well-being of every student by promoting the development of an inclusive school climate characterized by supportive relationships and a personalized culture of care.
FUNCTIONS:
A. Ensures the formation of a culture defined by trust
B. Ensures that each student is known, valued, and respected
C. Ensures that students are enmeshed in a safe, secure, emotionally protective, and healthy environment
D. Ensures that each student has an abundance of academic and social support
E. Ensures that each student is an active member of the school
The draft version of Standard 5 of the "refreshed" ISLLC Standards are unlikely to change in any substantive way between now and final form of these standards. While this is great news for those of us working in education and wanting to work in partnership with leaders to implement "trauma-informed classrooms" or "compassionate schools" or from a "whole child" perspective - consider also that for the vast majority of administrators there has been little to no training available for them on these important topics. One look at the reading materials on any administrators shelves and you will see the number of books on "leadership" is probably 10:1 in favor of books on PLC's, running effective meetings, aligning curriculum, implementing standards-based reform - etc - rather than books filled with strategies for implementing an inclusive culture of trust where every student is known and provided emotionally and psychologically safe learning conditions. Yes, there are exceptions, but just for fun ask the administrators you work most closely with and track what their top ten books on leadership are. Odds are strongly against there being more than 1 book strongly aligned with ISLLC Standard 5.
This begs the question, "How can we best support leaders as they "refresh" their own mindset, learning and skills in ways that align with their own professional standards of practice as it pertains to Standard 5?" Here are 5 ideas to help get you started (and I'd love to hear the dozens of other ideas that will no doubt become necessary!):
- First, trust that as professionals all administrators want to demonstrate evidence of meeting all of these professional standards - including Standard 5.
- Consider the barriers that leaders might encounter throughout systems where they are now facilitating "crucial conversations" they had previously opted out of. Ask yourself if you are one of those barriers (either real or perceived).
- Engage leaders in constructive dialogue on each of these professional standards in conjunction with Standard 5 in order to explore the mutually reinforcing nature that alignment of efforts could provide.
- Recognize that as leaders look to demonstrate evidence-based practice from within their role that they will ultimately need to partner at very deep levels with a diverse range of practitioners - and this will include you.
Finally, help leaders to know that leadership is a function - not just a formal title - and that if/as you have opportunities to engage in constructive dialogue around such topics as becoming "trauma-informed" or "creating a compassionate school" - that you will avail them to your own informal leadership skills and influence in service of the needs of all learners. Get rid of the "we" and "they" thinking and make it a concerted "us" !
As you may not be very familiar with such leadership standards, or perhaps have never viewed them, consider also that those in formal leadership positions will now have a greater professional impetus, or pressure, to lead conversations within and across organizations that help integrate professional convictions around viewing student needs through a trauma-informed or compassionate lens. In other words, while many have couched the discussion as an "either/or" it is now more likely than ever that leaders will view academic reform efforts (ie, Common Core) as being intricately connected to what I like to call "Common Care" standards. We are entering a time of "both/and" thinking.
But what if a leader encounters resistance in an attempt to provide evidence in support of Standard 5? Can they simply say, "I can't lead effectively on Standard 5 because _______(fill in the blank)____ " reasons? The answer is "no", they cannot. That said, it will be vital to recognize that just as their will be no "opt out" for individuals filling formal leadership positions (principals, superintendents, etc), there will also be no "opt out" for staff who work against leaders in formal positions who are clearly attempting to create a culture of trust where students are supported in the ways described in Standard 5.
It was with this very premise that I worked in my own capacity as an administrator for 10 years in Washington State. As a way of summarizing my own work as a professional and leader, I developed an online course that synthesized many of the great things I was seeing evidenced in my own work context that aligned with the best practice literature I was learning about simultaneously. The result was a 3 credit course titled, Creating Compassionate Schools, which can now be accessed from virtually any location in the nation including several NCATE accredited universities. Though I had very little of what might be called "push back" in my own context, I had heard from colleagues that sentiments from within their organizations fell along three distinct lines. With this in mind, I began my course by surfacing these sentiments head on.
From the opening pages of the course:
It is anticipated that as a committed professional you are already actively engaged in many levels of educational reform that have a variety of applications to your work. You also may have a strong sense about your teaching style and wonder whether it will fit within a compassionate schooling approach. Perhaps you have so much on your plate right now that you can’t entertain the thought of adding more.
You may have one of three basic concerns about “compassionate schooling.”
- Concern #1: Compassionate Schooling concerns itself with unscientific fluff or “TFC” (“touchy feely c+@p
- Concern #2: Compassionate Schooling represents a distraction from “real reform” efforts
- Concern #3: Compassionate Schooling is not for everyone and professionals need to be allowed to opt out.
These are valid concerns that will be addressed as you move through the course. Time will be invested in thinking through whether “compassionate schooling” is TFC, is just another reform strategy, or should remain optional for professionals.
Source: Creating Compassionate Schools, CE Credits Online (www.cecreditsonline.org)
As I bring an already long blog post to a close, I surface the idea that if any true traction is to be gained in the "refreshing" of the ISLLC Standards - and in particular Standard 5 - it will not be the result of service providers who themselves are out of step with what research clearly now supports. If they attempt to disconnect from the conversation, minimize it as being "TFC", characterize it as "a distraction from real reform efforts", or that it should be left up to each individual whether to opt in or opt out......it will speak volumes about what reading volumes are (or aren't) on their own desk.
Only time will tell what evidence might be produced if a unified professional "academy of learners" embraced a common standard of care - or "Common Care" standards - resulting in greater access to and success in learning through improved learning conditions regardless of need - academic, social, or emotional.
Steve Dahl
Comments (1)