Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 8/16/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 8/22/2019 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 8/22/2019 Special Issue Standards and Competency Frameworks for School Administrators: Global, Comparative and Critical Perspectives education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 27 Number 111 September 23, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 Standards and Competency Frameworks for School Administrators: Global, Comparative and Critical Perspectives Augusto Riveros & Wei Wei Western University Canada Citation: Riveros, A., & Wei, W. (2019). Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators: Global, comparative and critical perspectives. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(111). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4988 This article is part of a special issue, Standards and Competency Frameworks for School Administrators: Global, Comparative and Critical Perspectives, guest edited by Augusto Riveros and Wei Wei. Abstract: In this introduction to the special issue, we highlight the increased transnational interest in standardizing the knowledge, competencies, and practices that relate to educational leadership. While acknowledging the thematic convergences in leadership standards and competency frameworks from heterogenous localities, we propose that it is critical to interrogate the policy mobilities and the recontextualization of the discourses that have contributed to the formulation and implementation of standards. To achieve this aim, this special issue stages a global dialogue about this global leadership turn by including a selection of articles that discuss the emergence and adoption of education leadership standards in diverse linguistic, social and cultural contexts. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4988 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 Keywords: Standards; competencies; educational leadership; school administration; policy mobilities Estándares y competencias en gestión educativa: Perspectivas globales, comparativas y críticas Resumen: En esta introducción al número especial, llamamos la atención sobre el renovado interés a nivel transnacional en la estandarización de los conocimientos, competencias y prácticas en gestión y liderazgo educativos. Reconociendo las convergencias temáticas en los marcos de estándar y competencia formulados en múltiples contextos nacionales e internacionales, señalamos la importancia de interrogar críticamente las movilidades y recontextualizaciones en estos discursos. En particular, sugerimos que el estudio de la implementación de reformas educativas sobre liderazgo y gestión escolar, merecen atención especial por parte de investigadores y legisladores. Las contribuciones incluidas en este número especial revelan el estado actual del “giro hacia el liderazgo” en tanto fenómeno global, con análisis situados en diversos contextos lingüísticos, sociales y culturales. Palabras-clave: Estándares; competencias; liderazgo educativo; gestión educativa, movilidades en política educativa Padrões e competências em gestão educacional: Perspectivas globais, comparativas e crítica Resumo: Nesta introdução à edição especial, chamamos a atenção para o interesse renovado no nível transnacional na padronização de conhecimentos, habilidades e práticas em gestão e liderança educacional. Reconhecendo as convergências temáticas nas estruturas de padrões e competências formuladas em múltiplos contextos nacionais e internacionais, destacamos a importância de questionar criticamente as mobilidades e recontextualizações desses discursos. Em particular, sugerimos que o estudo da implementação de reformas educacionais sobre liderança e gestão escolar mereça atenção especial de pesquisadores e legisladores. As contribuições incluídas nesta edição especial revelam o estado atual da “virada para a liderança” como um fenômeno global, com análises localizadas em diversos contextos linguísticos, sociais e culturais. Palavras-chave: Padrões; competições; liderança educacional; gestão educacional; mobilidade na política educacional Assessing the Leadership Turn in Education Reform Recent education reform initiatives that emphasize the achievement of system outcomes have provoked a reconfiguration of the structure and administration of schools in several jurisdictions worldwide. Instigated by international assessment programmes like PISA and TIMMS, numerous education systems have begun to focus on the organizational conditions that facilitate the achievement of measurable learning outcomes, and more specifically, on the practices of actors in charge of delivering and implementing the policy messages on school improvement at the school level. Within these outcomes-based reform initiatives, leadership has been conceptualized as the ideal policy mechanism to organize the different school actors towards attaining the system’s goals. School administrators, under these regimes, have been positioned as the key policy actors in charge of student learning, defined as the key indicator of school effectiveness (Pont et al., 2008; Riveros, Verret, & Wei, 2016). Over the last three decades, there has been a heightened global interest in identifying and operationalizing the knowledge, competencies, and practices that relate to leadership in education. This “leadership turn” (Riveros, Newton & Burgess, 2017; Strain, 2009; Thorpe, 2019) is evidenced Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 3 in policy initiatives that seek to standardize the leadership practices of school administrators. Leadership standards and competency frameworks have been formulated and adopted in numerous national and provincial/state contexts, and have been used for leadership preparation, professional learning, and evaluation. Some examples include the Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014), the Kiwi Leadership for Principals: Principals as Educational Leaders (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2008), and the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015) in the United States. Examples of provincial/state frameworks include The Alberta Professional Practice Standards (Alberta Education, 2018); the Leadership Standards for Principals and Vice-Principals in British Columbia (British Columbia Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association, 2016), and The Ontario Leadership Framework (Ontario Institute for Education Leadership, 2013). As noted by some commentators (English, 2006; Magno, 2013), these frameworks maintain striking similarities across localities. These attempts to homogenize leadership practice, however, have received numerous critiques. In particular, leadership standards have been criticized for their decontextualization and for neglecting issues related to equity and social justice (English, 2006; Davis, Gooden, & Micheaux, 2015; Niesche, 2013). Moreover, the development of leadership standards has been conceptualized as a disciplinary mechanism, and a manifestation of governmentality in education (Usher & Edward, 1994). These critiques noted that by standardizing school leadership practice across contexts, the leadership turn normalizes and legitimizes knowledges, values, and discourses related to outcomes- based reform. A particular concern, noted by some of the articles included in this special issue, is the lack of attention to issues of indigeneity, race, gender, sexual identity, ability and social class, among others, which has serious implications for the preparation, practice and evaluation of school leaders (English, 2006; Niesche, 2013). Reacting to some of these critiques, some jurisdictions have begun to revise their leadership standards to address the rapidly changing expectations for and responsibilities of principals and vice-principals. Some examples include the NPBA Professional Standards for Educational Leaders in the United States (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015) and the Alberta Professional Practice Standards (Alberta Education, 2018). As educational systems begin to revise their standards, more research is needed to investigate the impact of these frameworks in global, national and local contexts. This special issue aims to contribute to this research effort with a selection of notable studies that interrogate and compare standards and competency frameworks in different jurisdictions. Policy Mobilities Researchers have identified important thematic convergences when comparing the formulation of leadership standards in different countries. Some of the common themes include : 1) setting goals, establishing shared visions, and planning for school development; 2) improving student academic performance; 3) providing instructional leadership, and promoting teacher professional development; 4) increasing school effectiveness through resource allocation, budgeting, and personnel management; 5) engaging in communications and collaborations with teachers, parents as well as community members; and 6) ensuring school safety (Ingvarson et al., 2006; Pont et al., 2008; Riveros et al., 2016; Walker, Bryant, & Lee, 2013; Wei, 2017). According to researchers in comparative and international education (Phillips & Ochs, 2004; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004), the recent proliferation of leadership standards evidences a global convergence in the discourses and practices of education reform. This global convergence in education policy has been driven by discourses derived from New Public Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 Management (O’Reilly & Reed, 2010), which have placed emphasis on decentralization, global competition, and market-based accountability. The adoption of these discourses normally results from complicated power relations, marked by the interests, conflicts, and negotiations among stakeholders across local, national, regional, and global levels (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Consequently, in understanding the global mobilities of policy ideas, it is critical to ask: Why have particular discourses been mobilized globally? And, how have those discourses been recontextualized locally? As noted by Carney (2008), “contemporary globalization is characterized by ‘flows’ that are not only rapid but ‘disjunctive’, embodying new possibilities but also inconsistencies and contradictions” (p. 64). In order to address, these questions, we adopt a comparative approach that aims to analyze cases from various national education systems. This strategy has been used by Magno (2013) in her analysis of the neoliberal influences in the policyscape of school leadership. Drawing upon five cases (Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Switzerland, the United States), Magno’s study underpins the global forces that have influenced the education leadership reform agenda, namely decentralization, accountability and international assessments. This Special Issue The articles selected for this special issue offer timely and robust perspectives on the current status of the global leadership turn in education reform. They exemplify diverse national contexts, offering an opportunity to compare and contrast different manifestations of the standardization movement in educational leadership. Indeed, a unique contribution of this special issue is the inclusion of studies situated in diverse linguistic, social and cultural contexts, such as Chile, Mexico, Quebec, Spain and the United States, an effort that aims to connect multiple academic literatures on educational policy and administration in conversations about the global phenomenon of leadership standards. We believe that a global dialogue about the standardization movement would offer important insights about the origin and uptake of policy ideas in education reform. As noted by Eacott (2015), “‘leadership’ may be more of a particular socio-geographic construct than a universal” (p. 33), a sentiment that resonates with Magno’s (2013) observation that the leadership standards movement, originated in anglophone countries of the global north, rapidly spread out to other national and cultural contexts around the globe. While this could be interpreted as a form of epistemological (Eacott, 2015), cultural, or ideological imperialism, more empirical research is needed to determine the extent by which constructs like “leadership” are adopted, or reimagined, in local policy contexts. The contributions included in this special issue offer substantial insights to evaluate the impact of these leadership reform discourses in various jurisdictions around the globe. The papers in this issue have been organized in two groups, depending on the methodological focus of the study. We recognize, however, that this classification is ad-hoc and arbitrary as substantial overlaps and connections exist among the manuscripts. The first group includes studies that focused on comparisons between standards, such as Larochelle-Audet et al. (Quebec, Australia, British Columbia, California, England, New Zealand, Texas, and the United States), and Diaz Delgado and García Martinez (Mexico and Spain), The second group includes studies that focused on specific cases, such as Bolivar (Spain); Childs (United States); Lambert and Bouchama (Quebec) and Rivero et al. (Chile). Clearly, our organization of the issue is merely a heuristic to animate a much-needed conversation regarding leadership standards discourses and policies at a global scale. We invite the readers of this issue to identify the rich relations between these contributions. The first paper by Larochelle-Audet, Magnan, Potvin, & Doré compares the Québec competency standards with other frameworks from Australia, British Columbia, California, England, Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 5 New Zealand, Texas, and the United States. Their study explores the ways in which the competency standards address issues of equity, inclusion, and social justice. In their analysis, Larochelle-Audet et al. categorized the examined leadership standards into three groups. In the first group, which includes the standards from Australia, California, and the United States, school leaders are explicitly encouraged to pursue the goals of equity, inclusion, and social justice in education. Further, rather than focusing on a deficit perspective, these standards highlight the leadership competencies and practices that will help overcome structural injustices in schools. The second group includes the standards from British Columbia and New Zealand. In this group, there is some reference to some social categories, but there is limited elaboration on the visions of school leaders to address the structural determinants of inequity. The last group includes leadership standards from England, Québec, and Texas. In this group the practices outlined do not seem to address issues of equity, inclusion, and social justice directly. These standards seem to focus more on achieving system outcomes through high efficiency and performance. The authors conclude that most leadership standards examined in their study have been, in one way or another, influenced by New Public Management discourses. Lastly, the paper proposes recommendations for the redevelopment of leadership standards in Québec, recognizing the importance of equity in the provision of education. In the second paper, Díaz Delgado and García Martínez reported on their comparative analysis of standards in Mexico and Spain, with a particular focus on the role of the standards in 1) the selection and promotion of school leaders, 2) the development of bureaucratic structures, and 3) leadership preparation. The comparison reveals important similarities and differences between these frameworks. For instance, in Mexico, the standards have been formulated and implemented at the national level, whereas in Spain, the standards have been formulated and implemented at the provincial, regional or institutional level. Another important difference is the conceptualization of the principal’s (director/a): in Spain, some hybridity (teacher/administrator) is maintained throughout the leader’s professional career. Principals are often selected from within the teaching body and can retain some teaching duties; after their period as principals is over, they can return to their teaching duties. In Mexico, the principals’ work is exclusively administrative; they only participate in teaching as instructional leaders. One important similarity between these systems is the pervasiveness of institutional hierarchies that centralize decision-making on the principal, in detriment of more distributed and democratic forms of school governance. Another common aspect in both contexts is the existence of leadership preparation strategies designed to support beginning school leaders during the first stages of their career. The authors recommend further comparative analyses to illuminate some of the factors that influence the formulation of standards as well as the development of joint research initiatives to develop collaboration and knowledge exchange. The third paper in this issue is Bolivar’s study of leadership standards in Spain. His analysis aims to situate the Spanish framework, Marco Español para Buena Dirección (MEBD), in relation to global trends on leadership reform. In particular, Bolivar identifies conceptual relations with frameworks from Chile, Peru, Ontario (Canada) and the US. One common theme in these frameworks, according to Bolivar’s study, is the repositioning of the school administrator as instructional leader. As noted above, this refocusing towards instructional leadership reflects current trends on education reform that position learning outcomes as the measure of educational effectiveness. Another theme highlighted by the author is the preference for distributed forms of leadership in the standards. In Bolivar’s view, the introduction of shared forms of leadership and governance in educational organizations would offer new possibilities for leadership development and professionalization in school administration. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 In the fourth paper, Farley, Childs, and Johnson examined the extent to which the recently revised leadership standards in the US (PSEL, NELP) respond to the challenges that school leaders face in their work, particularly concerning equity and justice. The authors start with an overview of the development of the leadership standards in the US, noting the historical alignment between the different iterations of the standards for leadership practice in schools (e.g. ISLLC, PSEL) and the standards for leadership preparation (e.g. ELCC, NELP). One highlight of the latest versions, namely the PSEL (2015) and NELP (2018), is that more attention is given to the school leaders’ practice and day-to-day experiences. Moreover, the revised leadership standards have also attempted to include an equity-oriented language by emphasizing a vision towards all students’ success. In order to assess the extent to which these changes incorporate concerns about equity in schools, the authors conducted a content analysis of the different versions of the standards documents. They found that while equity and justice are mentioned in all leadership standards, these notions are addressed more frequently in the revised versions. However, more references to inclusion were found in the NELP standards compared to the PSEL standards, and fewer references to justice were found in the NELP standards compared with the PSEL standards. Farley et al. argue that the revised leadership standards in the United States have evidenced an evolving understanding of equity and justice in education by placing more emphasis on cultural responsiveness, educational opportunities, and the role of the educational leader in creating equitable schools. Nevertheless, the conceptualizations of equity and justice still focus on the distribution of goods and access, which fails to address the complexity of equity as a wicked problem in education, that is, a problem that is complex, difficult to conceptualize, and difficult to address. The authors noted that the standards have yet to recognize the institutionalized challenges experienced by students from diverse backgrounds, as well as the role of school leaders in influencing policies. Farley et al. recommend the design of leadership preparation and development programs that, in addition to critically engaging the current leadership standards, would promote the abilities to “rethink, reimagine, and transcend” school contexts. In the fifth article in this issue, Lambert and Bouchamma investigate the competencies required for the day-to-day practice of school leaders in Québec. Recent educational reforms in Québec introduced a results-based management model centered on school effectiveness. In light of this new context, school leaders in Québec are expected to pay increasing attention to student academic achievement. Following these reforms, leadership competency standards were introduced in 2008 aiming to reflect the school leaders’ changing roles and responsibilities. Drawing upon these competency standards, the authors interviewed 13 school leaders to explore the challenges in their work and the strategies they adopted to overcome those difficulties. Some of the themes that emerge from their findings include creating dynamic educational projects, priority management, and adaptation to changes. The competencies mentioned by participants in relation to those challenges include balancing between personal and professional life, managing staff, networking, managing the unexpected, and stress management. In addition, the findings highlight four cross-curricular competencies, including collaboration, leadership, communication, and listening. Moreover, even though not listed in the leadership standards, emotional intelligence and previous teaching experience are seen as cross-curricular competencies for school leaders to meet their challenges. Lambert and Bouchamma conclude that the leadership standards in Québec have addressed the competencies needed by school leaders to face the challenges in their everyday practices. They recommend the inclusion of competencies related to emotional intelligence, previous teaching experience, managing stress and the unexpected. The authors conclude that Québec’s leadership Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 7 standards are effective guidelines for practicing school leaders, notwithstanding that the expectations for principals and vice-principals have been constantly increasing and changing. The sixth paper in this issue is Rivero, Hurtado and Yañez’s study of school administrators’ perceptions of leadership preparation in Chile. Using the Chilean educational leadership framework, Marco para la Buena Direccion y Liderazgo Escolar (MBDLE), as their referent, these researchers surveyed 575 school principals (directores/as) to investigate the administrators’ knowledge, perceptions, and expectations in relation to the MBDLE. Their findings reveal that the leadership framework has been influential in the development of leadership practices in schools. The analysis shows that while administrators recognize the value of the standards as guidelines for practice, the levels of preparation to implement the framework vary significantly; that is, while the participants see themselves as highly prepared for some dimensions of the framework, other dimensions, particularly those associated to the implementation of new curricular initiatives, require additional support. Some of the recommendations include the development of more specific and diversified leaning opportunities for administrators that respond to the organizational and cultural context of the school, as well as a recognition that the career stage of the administrators plays a role in their professional learning. Relatedly, the authors suggest these multiple professional development opportunities must reflect the different competencies of the MBDLE; keeping in mind that not all administrators possess the same level of preparation and experience. Rivero et al. conclude by arguing that the successful implementation of the leadership framework would be greatly improved by investigating the professional learning needs of other members of the leadership team in the school. This would offer a more informed perspective of the distribution of leadership capacity in educational organizations. Conclusions This special issue seeks to contribute to the emerging scholarship on global leadership reform by presenting and comparing cases from multiple national spaces. Research on school leadership has been largely dominated by instrumentalism and has evidenced a lack of critical evaluation of the discourses that shape leadership practice and policy around the globe (Eacott, 2015; Magno, 2013). As leadership reform becomes a global phenomenon, comparative analyses of standardization in educational administration and leadership prove urgent and necessary (English, 2006). In order to accomplish this task, research on leadership standards from non-English speaking contexts must be brought to the fore. Indeed, some of the articles included in this special issue offer diverse global perspectives on the adoption of leadership standards. Aiming to animate the comparative analysis of leadership standards, the editors of this special issue have created an online repository of policy documents and scholarship on leadership standards and competency frameworks around the world. The Global Observatory of Leadership Standards (https://www.edu.uwo.ca/gols/ ) offers a compendium of policies and research organized by country and themes. Our attempt is to offer a toolbox for policy makers, researchers, and practitioners interested in the evaluation, comparison, development and mobilities of these global policy trends. We believe that this evolving global conversation has the potential to reveal new aspects of the contemporary dynamics of school reform and will provide new venues for scholarship, policy analysis and development. https://www.edu.uwo.ca/gols/ Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 References Alberta Education. (2009). Principal Quality Practice Guideline: Promoting Successful School Leadership in Alberta. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/leadership-excellence/leadership competencies/?searchMode=3 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/school- leadership/ustralian-professional- standard-for-principals-and-the-leadership-profiles.pdf?sfvrsn=8 British Columbia Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association. (2016). Leadership Standards for Principals and Vice-principals in British Columbia. Retrieved from https://bcpvpa.bc.ca/oleadership-standards-for-principals-and-vice-principals-in-bc/ Carney, S. (2008). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: Exploring educational “policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 63-88. Davis, B. W., Gooden, M. A., & Micheaux, D. J. (2015). Color-blind leadership: A critical race theory analysis of the ISLLC and ELCC standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 335-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15587092 Eacott, S. (2015). Educational leadership relationally: A theory and methodology for educational leadership, management and administration. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-911-1 English, F. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06289675 Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M., Gronn, P., & Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for school leadership: A critical review of literature. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (ACER). Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=teaching_standards Magno, C. S. (2013). Comparative perspectives on international school leadership: Policy, preparation, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810514 National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge- center/Documents/Professional-Standardsfor-Educational-Leaders-2015.pdf New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2008). Kiwi Leadership for Principals: Principals as Educational Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership- development/Keyleadershipdocuments/Kiwi-leadership-for-principals Niesche, R. (2013). Politicizing articulation: Applying Lyotard’s work to the use of standards in educational leadership. International Journal Leadership in Education, 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.688874 Ontario Institute for Educational Leadership. (2013). The Ontario Leadership Framework. Retrieved from https://www.education-leadership- ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_Framework_OLF.pdf O’Reilly, D. & Reed, M. (2010). ‘Leaderism’: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88(4), 960-978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9299.2010.01864.x Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 773-797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510394010 https://education.alberta.ca/leadership-excellence/leadership https://education.alberta.ca/leadership-excellence/leadership http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/school-%09leadership/ustralian-professional-standard-for-principals-and-the-leadership-profiles.pdf?sfvrsn=8%20 http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/school-%09leadership/ustralian-professional-standard-for-principals-and-the-leadership-profiles.pdf?sfvrsn=8%20 https://bcpvpa.bc.ca/oleadership-standards-for-principals-and-vice-principals-in-bc/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15587092 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-911-1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06289675 https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=teaching_standards https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810514 http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Professional-Standardsfor-Educational-Leaders-2015.pdf http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Professional-Standardsfor-Educational-Leaders-2015.pdf http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development/Keyleadershipdocuments/Kiwi-leadership-for-principals http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development/Keyleadershipdocuments/Kiwi-leadership-for-principals https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.688874 https://www.education-leadership-ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_Framework_OLF.pdf https://www.education-leadership-ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_Framework_OLF.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01864.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01864.x https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510394010 Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 9 Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 773-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000279495 Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD publications. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/44374889.pdf Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2017). Leadership standards and the discursive repositioning of leadership, leaders, and non-leaders: A critical examination. In G. Lakomski, S. Eacott, & C. Evers (Eds.). Questioning leadership: New directions for educational organizations (pp. 151 - 163). London: Routledge. Riveros, A., Verret, C., & Wei, W. (2016). The translation of leadership standards into leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 593-608. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867396 Strain, M. (2009). Some ethical and cultural implications of the leadership turn' in education: On the distinction between performance and performativity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208099332 Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press. Thorpe, A. (2019). Educational leadership development and women: Insights from critical realism. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1450995 Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. London; New York: Routledge. Walker, A., Bryant, D., & Lee, M. (2013). International patterns in principal preparation: Commonalities and variations in pre-service programmes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 405-434. Wei, W. (2017). Education policy borrowing: Professional standards for school leaders in China. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2017.1331012 https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000279495 http://www.oecd.org/education/school/44374889.pdf https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867396 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208099332 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1450995 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2017.1331012 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 About the Guest Editors Augusto Riveros Western University gus.riveros@uwo.ca ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9942-6380 Augusto Riveros is associate professor in critical policy equity and leadership studies in the Faculty of Education at Western University in Ontario. Canada. His areas of interest include methods and theory in educational administration and leadership, policy analysis and education reform. His work has been published in numerous international journals and edited books . Dr. Riveros’ research has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Wei Wei Western University wwei32@uwo.ca ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0090-5614 Wei Wei is a Ph.D. Candidate in critical policy, equity, and leadership studies in the Faculty of Education at Western University in Ontario Canada. Her research interests include educational leadership, policy analysis, and comparative and international educatio n. Special Issue Standards and Competency Frameworks for School Administrators: Global, Comparative and Critical Perspectives education policy analysis archives Volume 27 Number 111 September 23, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9942-6380 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0090-5614 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 11 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 111 SPECIAL ISSUE 12 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Paula Razquin, Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), Maria Alejandra Tejada-Gómez (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') Standards and competency frameworks for school administrators 13 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGV, Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil