Abstract
Excerpt: The ISLLC (Murphy, Yff and Shipman, 2000) standards simply are notentirely what they claim to be, i.e., ‘what research and practitioners havetold the ISLLC representatives are critical components of effectiveleadership’ (ETS 1997: 4). Some dispositions and performances whichcomprise the standards are neither scientific (research based) norempirically supportable. The standards are ambiguous and not withoutinternal contradiction. When such a doctrine is proposed to be nationallyapplied in the training, preparation and licensing of educational adminis-trators embraced by the political power of the state for enforcement, we areabout to embark on what Michel Foucault (1980: 32) has aptly identified asa ‘regime of truth’. Such regimes are politically repressive to all otherpossibilities. Given the looming national implementation and test based onthe ISLLC standards, it is my position that such a doctrine deserves themost serious and sustained interrogation.