Free Essay

File

In:

Submitted By brooklynn2
Words 4607
Pages 19
|ISLLC Standards and School Leadership: Who’s Leading This Band? |
| |
| |Paul Pitre |
| |Auburn University |
| | |
| |Wade Smith |
| |Louisiana State University |
|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) standards serve to define expected outcomes and activities for |
|effective school leaders. As such, the standards provide a comprehensive overview of leadership in our nation’s schools and |
|serve as important referents for measuring school improvement and effectiveness. This article examines the centrist perspective |
|of the standards, where the principal is viewed as the leader, posits reasons why the centrist view of the principalship is |
|offered, and argues that this centrist notion of the leader is likely to encourage the under utilization of the collective human|
|capitol available to a school and ultimately stifle school improvement efforts. |
| |

| |
|[pic] |
|Executive Summary |
|[pic] |
|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) standards were intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue on K-12|
|leadership and a set of behavioral outcomes that school leaders can use to bring about substantive and sustained school |
|improvement. But not only have the standards sparked dialogue, they have also fueled some debate. Claims that the standards |
|lack an epistemological base have been answered with the argument that the students were only meant to represent a framework for|
|leadership in schools based on research and practice. |
| |
|The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate. They were also meant to enhance standards for the |
|practice of school leadership. Each standard is defined by subsets of indicators for expected performance. Collectively, the |
|standards are intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes for effective school leaders. |
| |
|ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN ISLLC STANDARDS |
| |
|The ISLLC standards have a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an educational leader. Though the need for |
|collaborative processes to create desired educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of |
|ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider Standard 1, where the school administrator |
|facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported |
|by the school community. The language in this standard suggests that the administrator facilitates collaborative efforts in |
|developing a vision for the school and the school community. However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 |
|contradicts the focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that the vision and |
|mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students, and community members. Why would the principal, |
|who is viewed as a facilitator of the vision in Standard 1, need to communicate the school vision to a staff that was directly |
|involved in its creation? In most instances, the principal would not have to be concerned with communicating the vision for a |
|school unless the decision-making process for creating the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a |
|small group of individuals that worked in a somewhat disconnected fashion from the faculty and the community. A truly |
|collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in the process of communicating the school vision as well. While a |
|collaborative effort in communicating the school vision to the broader public is a clear sign of stakeholder buy-in, the |
|individual effort of the principal in communicating the school vision to key stakeholders is the first sign of the top-down, |
|bureaucratic, centrist perception of the school leader. |
| |
|Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset embedded in the ISLLC standards. For example, |
|under Standard 2 curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise of teachers, and the recommendations of learned |
|societies. The implication is that curriculum matters are in the purview of the principal. This may be problematic, given the |
|uncertainty with regards to the expertise of principals and whether or not they are suited to have the final word in matters of |
|curriculum. This matter is of extreme importance in the current high-stakes testing environment that strikes a delicate balance|
|between teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing students for standardized tests on the other. It is also of particular|
|importance in complex learning environments like high schools, which offer an array of courses. However, the rationale is |
|logical if each principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision maker for all aspects of their school. |
| |
|ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS |
| |
|Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by no means out of favor in today's |
|schools. For example, the use of prescribed curricula is becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment |
|and often reduces the role of the teacher. Highly prescribed curricula tend to reduce the role of teachers to the equivalent of|
|assembly line worker in industry. They are expected to teach what and how they are told. |
| |
|The examples of the principal having decision authority over the curriculum and the teacher’s role in the prescribed curriculum |
|provide pause for rethinking the centrist perspective of ISLLC Standards. Further, envisioning a principal as the leader for |
|the myriad of ISLLC performance sub-standards provides even more reason to question the centrist view of ISLLC. Under ISLLC, |
|the principal is charged with maintaining high visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the larger |
|community. Another important job of the principal is the constant maintenance and facilitation of a safe, non-threatening |
|learning environment at the school campus. Each of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation |
|and every one of them is labor intensive. |
| |
|CONCLUSION |
| |
|In summary, the positioning of the principal as leader appears to be based more upon pre-established beliefs and norms than the |
|individual organizational needs of schools. Furthermore, framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide the means |
|for bringing to bear the talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems. This in itself is enough to give |
|pause to the idea of nesting leadership in principals by virtue of position and authority. However, other concerns also come |
|into play when principals are charged with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC framework. The authors of this |
|essay are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are unimportant. To the contrary, the point is that the standards are so |
|important that vesting their successful implementation and execution in one person (or at best a few people) is dubious. |
| |
| |
|[pic] |
|Main Article |
|[pic] |
|The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) set of standards for school leaders has received considerable |
|attention as a framework for reconceptualizing leadership in schools. The ISLLC organization was created in August of 1994 |
|through the collaborative efforts of 24 member states, several foundations, and numerous professional education organizations. |
|The purpose of ISLLC is to redefine the roles of school administrators through the introduction of a set of common standards, |
|which delineate the expected behavioral outcomes produced by K-12 educational leaders. Nearly thirty-five states have either |
|adopted or adapted the ISLLC standards and over 25,000 copies of the ISLLC standards have been disseminated (Council of Chief |
|State School Officers, 2002). |
| |
|The ISLLC standards were intended to serve as an impetus for dialogue about K-12 leadership and a set of behavioral outcomes |
|that school leaders can use to bring about substantive and sustained school improvement. But not only have the standards |
|sparked dialogue, they have also fueled some debate. English (2000) argued that the ISLLC standards have no epistemological base|
|and thus were not steeped in truth. In response to English’s claim, Murphy (2000) retorted that the standards were not meant to|
|represent truth, they were only meant to represent a framework for leadership in schools based on research and practice. |
| |
|The ISLLC standards were meant to do more than spark dialogue and debate. They were also meant to “raise the bar for the |
|practice of school leadership” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002). Each standard is defined by subsets of indicators|
|for expected performance. Collectively, the standards are intended to represent a comprehensive approach to defining outcomes |
|for effective school leaders. There are six core standards within the ISLLC standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, |
|2002). The standards articulate that school principals are responsible for: |
| |
|1. Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and |
|supported by the school community; |
|2. Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining school culture and instructional programs conducive to student learning and staff |
|professional growth; |
|3. Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning |
|environment; |
|4. Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing |
|community resources; |
|5. Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and |
|6. Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. |
| |
|According to ISLLC's web-site, these standards are reflective of school administrators who: |
| |
|...often espouse different patterns of beliefs and act differently from the norm in the profession. Effective school leaders |
|are strong educators, anchoring their work on central issues of learning and teaching and school improvement. They are moral |
|agents and social advocates for the children and the communities they serve. Finally, they make strong connections with other |
|people, valuing and caring for others as individuals and as members of the educational community (Council of Chief State School |
|Officers, 2002). |
| |
|The type of leader described by ISLLC is a visionary. A visionary is defined as an individual capable of conceptualizing a |
|clear course of action for an organization (Senge, 1994). This leader is then able to gain buy-in from members of the |
|organization and begin to move those members in a positive direction that will eventually be of direct benefit to the |
|organization and its surrounding community. It is clear that a primary goal of the ISLLC is to identify standards and |
|dispensations that, when implemented by a visionary leader, initiate a transformational process in schools whereby the core |
|beliefs, norms, and values of the organization are analyzed and restructured in an effort to produce more effective schools. |
|This is certainly an appropriate goal and an expected outcome of the ISLLC standards. What might be questionable are some of |
|the theoretical underpinnings of ISLLC standards. More specifically, the ISLLC standards are focused on traits and behaviors of|
|the leader and are not generally sensitive to the need for developing leadership throughout the school. If the outcomes |
|delineated by ISLLC are important (and they assuredly are), then it is also important to analyze the assumptions related to how |
|these outcomes might be realized to determine if the assumptions are correct. |
| |
|ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN THE ISLLC STANDARDS |
| |
|The ISLLC standards place a strong emphasis upon the school administrator as an educational leader. Though the need for |
|collaborative processes to create desired educational outcomes is given some mention in the document, there is quite a bit of |
|ambiguity in the language related to the outcomes indicators themselves. Consider Standard 1, where the school administrator |
|facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported |
|by the school community. The language in this standard suggests that the administrator facilitates collaborative efforts in |
|developing a vision for the school and the school community. However, the first performance indicator under Standard 1 |
|contradicts the focus of the standard when it states that the principal engages in activities to ensure that the vision and |
|mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students, and community members (Council of Chief State |
|School Officers, 2002. Standard 1, Performance Indicator 1). Why would the principal, who is viewed as a facilitator of the |
|vision in Standard 1, need to communicate the school vision to a staff directly involved in its creation? In most instances, |
|the principal would not have to be concerned with communicating the vision for a school unless the decision-making process for |
|creating the school's vision was primarily vested in the principal or perhaps a small group of individuals that worked in a |
|somewhat disconnected fashion from the faculty and the community. A truly collaborative effort should involve stakeholders in |
|the process of communicating the school vision. While a collaborative effort in communicating the school vision to the broader |
|public is a clear sign of stakeholder buy-in, the individual effort of the principal in communicating the school vision to key |
|stakeholders is the first sign of the top-down, bureaucratic, centrist perception of the school leader. |
| |
|Other language within the document corroborates the principal as leader mindset embedded in the ISLLC standards. For example, |
|under Standard 2 (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2002), curriculum decisions are based upon research, the expertise of |
|teachers, and the recommendations of learned societies. The implication is that curriculum matters are the purview of the |
|principal. This may be problematic, given the uncertainty with regards to the expertise of principals and whether or not they |
|are suited to have the final word in matters of curriculum. This matter is of extreme importance in the current high-stakes |
|testing environment that strikes a delicate balance between teaching and learning on one hand, and preparing students for |
|standardized tests on the other. It is also of particular importance in complex learning environments like high schools, which |
|offer an array of courses. However, the rationale is logical if each principal is envisioned, a priori, as the final decision |
|maker for all aspects of their school. |
| |
|A careful reading of the ISLLC standards, performances, and outcomes reveals a strong dependency upon the principal’s leadership|
|in a variety of areas within and outside the school setting. The standards do not clearly vest leadership at any other level of|
|the school. This traditional, bureaucratic orientation suggests that leadership within schools should be viewed primarily as |
|centrist, top-down, and essentially hierarchical in its function (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979). From this perspective,|
|final decision power is vested in an individual or a small group of individuals by virtue of their position in an organization's|
|hierarchical structure. Nearly twenty years ago Immegart (1988) questioned the viability of this model for leadership and |
|called for development of leadership that moved beyond focusing upon the activities or attributes of the leader. Even so, it |
|seems as though the leader centrist view of the principal’s role is still the norm for schools. |
| |
|RATIONALE FOR VESTING POWER IN THE PRINCIPAL |
| |
|At least three possibilities come to mind to justify the centrist leadership assumptions nested in the ISLLC standards. First, |
|separation of schools into leaders and followers may be based upon the belief that work and work standards are best determined |
|by those individuals considered to have higher rank and more theoretical knowledge (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Mintzberg, 1979). |
|Second, removing teachers from the ultimate responsibility of curriculum decisions may be a means for freeing them from |
|burdensome administrative tasks while still allowing for their input. Finally, a third possibility might be that sometimes |
|individuals are placed in leadership roles within an organization based on their status within the hierarchical structure even |
|though other organizational members may possess similar levels of skill. Each of these perspectives is discussed below from the|
|context of the principal having final purview over matters of instruction as delineated by the ISSLC standards. |
| |
|Possibility 1: Leaders and Followers |
| |
|Using an example from industry and the bureaucratic model suggested by the ISLLC standards, line managers (e.g., structural |
|engineers), by virtue of their status in a hierarchy, would make most important decisions, which would then be implemented by |
|craftsmen (e.g., ironworkers). In this example it is true that the engineer possesses knowledge that an ordinary field worker |
|would not be expected to possess. Therefore, it is reasonable for the engineer to assume the role of leader in a manner |
|consistent with the underpinnings of the ISLLC document. However, unlike the engineer in the previous example, it is suspect to|
|assume that school administrators possess a unique body of knowledge in matters of curriculum. In fact, the opposite may be |
|true with teachers having a fuller understanding of key issues and decisions involving curriculum that impact the quality of |
|teaching and learning in a school. |
| |
|Possibility 2: Free Teachers from Unnecessary Tasks |
| |
|There is certainly merit in trying to insulate teachers from activities unrelated to instruction. However, the belief that |
|principals should have the final decision on matters of curriculum at a school does not seem to be congruent with this aim. |
|Teachers are the only school-based personnel most likely to see—or experience—consequences of leadership decisions regarding |
|curriculum, whether on a day-to-day or a general programmatic basis. Excluding teachers from a framework for leadership might |
|be seen as an expedient way to free teachers up from organizational encumbrances and allow them to focus on teaching and |
|learning. Yet, as noted earlier, the very practice of teaching and learning is the area where teachers would be expected to |
|have considerable expertise. The notion of vesting final authority in one person over what has to that point been a |
|collaborative process is now losing favor in other work environments such as business and industry (House, 1998). |
| |
|Possibility 3: Only One Leader Is Needed |
| |
|This possibility can be seen in other work settings. For example, a conductor assumes the role of the leader of an orchestra |
|because the nature of the work only requires one leader even though many of the musicians may have similar (or perhaps higher) |
|abilities to read music, understand nuances of the music, and coordinate the efforts of individual orchestra members. Extending|
|the orchestral analogy to school leadership has been attempted (Hurley, 1999; Iwanicki, 1999). However, it does not appear to |
|be a good fit for conceptualizing leadership for schools because principals rarely “conduct” their orchestra (i.e., the faculty)|
|since schools have very few group performances. With the possible exception of the occasional faculty meeting, faculty members |
|are used to solo performances in the classroom and, generally, get very little direction from the principal—beyond the |
|occasional teacher evaluation. The conductor model of leadership may be a proper way to lead a classical orchestra, but it is a |
|questionable way to organize and lead a school. |
| |
|IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSICAL LEADERSHIP IN GENERAL |
| |
|Although the classical orchestral model of leadership may not be a good conceptual fit for school leadership, it does contain |
|many of the assumed norms found in schools today. In orchestras, information flows from the top-down (from the composer to the |
|conductor to the musicians). The genesis of the music's structure or master plan is the composer. Once the music is composed, |
|it is the conductor's job to ensure that the orchestra provides a true and faithful rendition of the composer's work. The score|
|acts like a blueprint, giving instructions to the conductor as to what the composer has created. Each orchestral member is |
|given pieces of the score and is responsible for executing their specific part of the composition. Their efforts are monitored |
|and refined by the conductor, the leader who is entrusted with the master blueprint for the musical performance. Precision and |
|fidelity are primary to the orchestra's mission. A classical orchestral performance is one where the essence of the composer's |
|master plan is captured, decoded, and executed precisely by the musicians while the conductor oversees and attunes the effort. |
| |
|The classical model for leadership has much in common with the way policy is created and implemented in schools. Boards of |
|education or legislative bodies create policy (scores) that are passed down to school-based administrators. The administrators |
|act as conductors and are charged with the oversight of the faithful replication of the policy. Extending the analogy, teachers|
|fulfill the role of musicians by taking the policy/score and working to ensure its faithful replication. Such an organization |
|for leadership in schools assumes several things. It assumes that outcomes are predictable and that the master plan for the |
|outcome is best generated from outside the organization (or at least distinct from those responsible for the plan's |
|implementation). Once policy is set, there is little opportunity to deviate and if there is any deviation (such as making |
|decisions about curriculum) then it is only natural that the conductor’s view (i.e., the principal’s view) would supersede those|
|of the orchestra (teachers). |
| |
|Although the practice of producing top-down leadership decisions is questionable, it is by no means out of favor in today's |
|schools. For example, the use of prescribed curricula is becoming quite commonplace in the current standards based environment |
|and often reduces the teacher's role to being little more than score readers (Smagorinsky, Lakly, and Star Johnson, 2002). From|
|the orchestra analogy, highly prescribed curricula tend to reduce teachers to third chair orchestra members who only perform |
|what and how they are told. |
| |
|In summary, the positioning of the principal as leader appears to be based more upon pre-established beliefs and norms than the |
|organizational needs of schools. Furthermore, framing principals as the leader is not likely to provide means for bringing to |
|bear the talents and skills of organizational members upon school problems. This in itself is enough to give pause to the idea |
|of nesting leadership in principals by virtue of position and authority. However, other concerns also come into play when |
|principals are charged with the myriad of responsibilities laid out in the ISLLC framework. |
| |
|CAVEATS FOR THE ISLLC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL |
| |
|Assuming, for the sake of argument, that principals should operate from a centrist perspective still requires a concession from |
|the proponents: namely, that the demands placed upon an ISLLC-driven administrator are likely to be difficult for one person to|
|perform. This point is driven home by even a cursory review of the standards. For example, the six ISLLC standards contain |
|within them approximately 100 performance sub-standards, some of which are part of labor-intense, ongoing processes. The single|
|example of the principal having the final decision over curriculum matters provides pause for rethinking the centrist |
|perspective of the ISLLC. Envisioning a principal as the leader for the myriad of sub-standards provides even more reason to |
|question the centrist view of ISLLC. |
| |
|Currently, many principals are expected to be actively engaged in a plenitude of professional activities such as: |
| |
|· School improvement efforts; |
|· Promoting a culture of high expectations for self, students, and staff; |
|· Organizing and implementing student and staff development; |
|· Policy advocacy; |
|· Oversight of the school plant facility; and |
|· Management of school budgets. |
| |
|All of these activities are quite time-intensive, and in the midst of these activities the administrator still needs to find |
|time to recognize, study, and apply emerging trends in instruction and the way schools operate. Furthermore, the principal is |
|charged with maintaining high visibility, active community involvement, and communication with the larger community. Finally, |
|another important job of the principal is the constant maintenance and facilitation of a safe, non-threatening learning |
|environment at the school campus. Each of these functions is critical to a school's effective and efficient operation, and |
|every one of them is labor intensive. For example, the evolving role of the principal as policy advocate requires education |
|leaders to promote the success of schools through active participation in, and knowledge of, policy-making processes (Pitre, |
|Reed, Ledbetter, 2003). The policy advocate role of the principal is also imbedded in the ISLLC Standards. |
| |
|As stated from the outset, we are not arguing that the ISLLC standards are unimportant. To the contrary, the point is that the |
|standards are so important that vesting their successful implementation and execution in one person (or at best a few people) is|
|dubious. If the leader-centrist perspective for these standards is to be maintained then it may be necessary, as an ordinary |
|task, to identify principals and principal candidates with extraordinary talents. Given the emerging and growing trend of a |
|principal shortage throughout the nation, identifying an extraordinary candidate for each and every principalship is unlikely |
|(Hughes, 1999). In fact, as the principalship becomes more demanding and accountability mandates more onerous, there is an |
|increasing likelihood that the administrator who is adept at psychology, time management, motivation, learning theory, safety |
|management, school community relations, public speaking, school law, and finance, etc., and is willing to accept the job's |
|responsibility for its remuneration will become an even rarer find. If school improvement is contingent upon principals |
|performing extraordinary tasks as an ordinary occurrence, then the realization of the goals and objectives of the ISLLC and |
|other school improvement models are at risk. And, if a school is fortunate to find themselves with the type of person who can |
|successfully manage all the ISLLC performance standards, stakeholders must wonder how long the school’s level of performance can|
|be maintained when the principal moves on. |
| |
|SUMMARY |
| |
|The ISLLC standards provide a comprehensive analysis and understanding of behavior associated with effective schools. However, |
|our view is that the standards fail to adequately utilize the human and social capital available within schools. Additionally, |
|the centrist framework for the standards unnecessarily pictures the principal as primarily responsible for a myriad of tasks |
|that could and should be rethought in terms of school leadership rather than from the perspective of the school leader. |
| |
|We believe the first step in rethinking the perspective of the ISLLC standards is the identification of potential limitations |
|inherent in current thinking. We have attempted to make an argument that the ISLLC standards are unnecessarily overly reliant |
|upon principals as the leader of their respective schools. If we have made our case, then it is also incumbent to begin to |
|rethink how the standards might be revisited from other theoretical perspectives. This is a subject for further consideration |
|and ongoing discussion. |
| |
|REFERENCES |
| |
|Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T.M (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings. |
| |
|Council of Chief State School Officers (2002, June 10). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards For School |
|Leaders. Retrieved October 7, 2002, from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=87 |
| |
|English, F.W. (2000) Psssssst. 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, 3(2) 159-167 |
| |
|House, E. (1998). Schools for sale: why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools and what will. New York: Teachers|
|College Press. |
| |
|Hughes, L.W. (Ed.) (1999). Principals as leaders (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. |
| |
|Hurley, C. (1999). A response to Bryan Brent. Newsletter of the Teaching in Educational Administration Special Interest Group |
|of the American Educational Research Association, 6(1), 4-5. |
| |
|Iwanicki, E. (1999). ISSLC standards and assessment in the context of school leadership reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation|
|in Education, 13(3), 283-294. |
| |
|Immegart, G. L. (1988). Leadership and leader behavior. In N. Boyan (ed.). Handbook of research on educational administration. |
|(pp. 259 – 277). New York: Longman Inc. |
| |
|Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. |
| |
|Murphy, J. (2000). A response to English. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4) 411-414. |
| |
|Pitre, P. E., Reed, C., and Ledbetter, C. (2003) Collaborative Policy Research: Preparing Educational Leaders for Advocacy. |
|Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration 2003 Yearbook, 55-60 |
| |
|Senge, P. M. (1994) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. |
| |
|Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A. and Star Johnson, T. (2002, April 1) Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach|
|within a prescribed curriculum. English Education. 34(3), 187-213 |
| |

Retrieved October 21, 2004 from: http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=11382

Similar Documents

Free Essay

File

...The first thing that most new users shifting from Windows find confusing is navigating the Linux file system. The Linux file system functions differently than the Windows file system. I will compare and contrast the differences of both and takes you through the layout input/output systems of both. In Linux, there is only a single hierarchal directory structure. Everything begins from the root directory which is represented by the symbol /, which then expands into sub-directories. Windows includes various partitions and then directories under those partitions; Linux places all the partitions underneath the root directory by mounting them in specific directories. In contrast, Windows uses the letter C as its root directory. In Windows, various partitions are detected during the boot process and are assigned a drive letter. Under Linux, the system must mount partitions and devices during the boot process; otherwise it will be unaware of its existence. This might not seem very convenient to provide access to your partitions or devices, but it offers greater flexibility. This is known as the unified file system in Linux which offers several advantages over the Windows file system. For example, let's examine the /usr directory. This directory resides off the root directory and contains most of the system executables. With the Linux file system, you can choose to mount it off another partition or even off another machine over a network connection. The underlying system will...

Words: 309 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management The File System Manager (also called the File Manager or File Management System) is the software responsible for creating, deleting, modifying, and controlling access to files – as well as for managing the resources used by the files. The File Manager provides support for the libraries of programs and data to online users, for spooling operations, and for interactive computing. These functions are performed in collaboration with the I/O Manager or Device Manager. ➢ Responsibilities of the File System Manager: The File System Manager has a complete job. It’s in charge of the system’s physical components, its information resources, and the policies used to store and distribute the files. To carry out its responsibilities, it must perform these four tasks: 1. Keep track of where each file is stored. 2. Use a policy that will determine where and how the files will be stored, making sure to efficiently use the available storage space and provide efficient access to the files. 3. Allocate each file when a user has been cleared for access to it, then record its use. 4. Deallocate the file when the file is to be returned to storage, and communicate its availability to others who may be waiting for it. The File System Manager’s policy determines where each file is stored and how the system, and its users, will be able to access them simply – via commands that are independent from device details. In addition, the policy must...

Words: 2584 - Pages: 11

Free Essay

Batch Files

...Batch Files: What is it and its harm Devry University The early business computers systems developed in the 1950’s showed how efficient they were by processing large group of records. They did all of this in batches. In the 1960s, computer engineers introduced interactive terminals. This would allow users to input for the very first time. Now today, even with use of laptops, home computers, and mobile devices. Most of the business and organizations still use some type of batch file processing for most of their applications. A batch file is a collection of commands that are processed in a certain order sometimes requiring the user to input information. With a computer using an operating system like Windows. A batch file is stored in a .bat file extension format. Most other operating systems may determine a batch file in a command file, using two or more commands that are processed one right after another. Just to perform the task at hand. Batch files are normally used to load programs, run different task at one time, and to perform repetitive tasks. An example of a batch file could be to back up files from different computers to a storage device or run the diagnostics on a system or process some type of log files. Batch files can start working at any time and can be left completely alone until the process is finished. The one of the main advantages to using batch files is the accessibility. A person can make the file entry themselves and...

Words: 710 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

File Access

...File Access Computers have become an important tool for the companies. They are used as time clocks, keep track of inventory, to communicate with customers and to do research. In some cases, the computer is used to assign tasks and inform employees of upcoming events. Though computers are good tool and resource, there is the potential an employee may misuse or access files they have no clearance to access. For this reason there is a need to restrict access. If a company has 5000 employees who have access to the computer system and there is a need to restrict 10 users from accessing a specific file, there is a need to establish protocols to prevent access. How this is done differs in each operating system. In Unix there are ways to set parameters for the 4990 users to access a single file. These are set within the types of files. They are called regular, directory, special, named pipes, links and symbolic links. Unix operating systems operate these files and routes them into a uniformed system that operates in the background supporting files and giving disk space as needed for files. This is done by using inode (Index node) which controls information the system needed for a specific file. Multiple files can be connected to one inode, but if active the inode will only be associated with one file and a file will be controlled by one inode. A file’s attributes, permissions, and control information are stored within the inode. In the FreeBSD inode for example has...

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management Nina N. Rountree POS 355 Terrence Carlson June 10, 2013 Operating systems that have numerous users with various security level clearances will require file protection. A UNIX operating system with 5,000 users could implement conventional UNIX file access controls if 4,990 of those users share the same level of security clearance. By means of a file access control structure on the UNIX operating system, each individual user is given a user ID (special user identification number). Users on a UNIX operating system will be allocated to a main class and possibly a variety of classes that will be associated with a unique class ID. Whenever a user creates a file, it is indicated by the individual’s unique user ID along with the user’s main class ID. Each individual user's accessibility is managed by the administrator with a file access control security type structure. The administrator can manage the permissions of all three main classes; read, write, and execute. Access is permitted to three types of users: the creator or owner of the file, the class the file belongs to, and various users with access to the system despite their class. The access control policy affects the level of access that is permitted by whom and under what conditions. Discretionary Access Control (DAC) manages permissions based on the requester’s identity and the regulations linked to access and permissions. Mandatory Access Control (MAC) manages permissions based on assessing protection...

Words: 526 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

File Management

...might think security will all be the same but there are difference between each one. As you read more you will understand the security and the difference between a MAC, UNIX/LINUX and Windows systems and how each one works.       Access control goal is to protect a resource from unauthorized access while facilitating seamless and legitimate use of such resources. Presently, each day users hold the need to access to those resources through a broad line of devices, such as PCs, laptops, PDA, smartphones and kiosks. Most organizations need to provide protection for their files and allow the correct people to access. The fundamental goal of an Access management system is to maintain confidentiality of user information and access, integrity of information control, availability of information and resources and accountability for knowing who holds the access to such information. File Management File management and file systems are a core part of the user experience for most users. They provide many...

Words: 2672 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

File Managment

...File Management (Option 1) POS 355 July 29, 2015 Peng File Management (Option 1) Access Rights is an accommodating tool that can be used to allow users on a network to file share (Stallings, 2015, p. 541). In most systems, users and groups of users have a certain granted access to files. There are many different access rights that can be assigned and are assigned based on the level of the user. Specifying which users can access one file in a system being supported by 5,000 users can be done by creating an access control list with the names of the 4,990 users who need access. Another way to allow the 4,990 users to access the files would be to put them all in one group and set the group access level accordingly. An access control list specifies which users are granted or denied access to certain files, and can be granted to individual users, or groups (Stallings, 2015, p. 525). In most multiuser systems, access control is enforced, and only certain users are allowed access and to perform certain actions on certain files. Access control information may include the owner, access information, and permitted actions. The owner is the individual who has control over the file, and who can grant or deny access to other users. Access information includes each of the user’s name and password. Some permitted actions that can be granted to users include reading, writing, executing, and transmission over a network (Stallings, 2015, p. 537). The owner of the file can grant all of these...

Words: 403 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

File Management

...Stephen Sylvester File Management POS:335 John Demory May 26th 2014 In this paper on file access I will be covering two different ways that a system that can support 5,000 users, specifically a protection scheme in UNIX. Please note that out of these 5,000 users, only 4,990 of those users will have access to a specific file. I will first begin with the explanation of one of the ways that a system can support 5,000 users and then move on to the second way that a system can support 5,000 users. The first way that a system can support 5,000 users is for the administrator or facilitator to set up an access control list of all 4,990 users that he or she wants to have access to the specific file. A great real world example of controlled access would be at my current place of employment at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. Every employee within the company is assigned user roles. These user roles reflect their job position within the company. Every employee has access to our shared drive folder on our network based on the employee’s credentials and need to know privileges (based on their specific duties and user role). Based on their credentials it will grant that employee access to specific folders. I personally deal with medical records and often, at times the doctors use our network shared drive to upload patient information to be indexed into our system. The doctors must be on the access control list in order to access our shared network drive. Being that I...

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management Paper When dealing with the file management concept of computers and operating systems there are always multiple options and preferences that are available. One method of file storing is when an operating system detects the type of file; the type of program used to access it and saves it as such with pathways and locations filled out. A second method is to allow the pathways and file types to be set by the user, allowing for any program or file extension that is available to be used. A third method is for the operating system to not allow the saving of file type or file extensions, but to assign a specific code related to that operating system that allows it to determine the file type. These three methods all have their benefits and drawbacks referring to ease of access, ease of storage, and the structure of the file system. As each of these methods provides a specific purpose the use of one method over another will depend on how a computer filing system is designed and also how it is utilized by frequent and authorized users. In an operating system that detects the file type when it is being stored the system is recognizing what application is being used to access that file and saving it in storage under a file directory that will open the file with that type or certain program. For example if a user is accessing a text document and saves it, the operating system will detect the word processing application and save the file in a directory or pathway that will...

Words: 885 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management POS/355 Brandon Elizaldi Steven Kernan File Management File management and file systems are a core part of the user experience for most users. They provide many essential and necessary functions for the user as well as almost anyone else working with a computer system. They provide anything from long term existence to the ability to create and delete stored data. Some of the benefits to the user are long term existence, the ability to be shared between processes and structure. Long term existence is an important aspect because it can be stored and recalled in the future. Imagine being stuck in the days the original Nintendo for example. You could play a game and get deep into game play but if you didn’t have time to finish the game you had to start all over again. This was due to the fact that there was no file system built in due to the fact a storage device was not available for the system. This is one of the great things about current game systems that have file systems and storage capacity. Another benefit is the ability to share files between processes. This has streamlined new software creation because the program doesn’t have to be built as a standalone. This keeps programmers from having to reinvent the wheel every time they write a program making them cheaper and easier to write. This also saves disk space on the users system. The next benefit is structure which provides a hierarchy within a file system allowing for more complex structures...

Words: 705 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management By: Amy Gonzales POS/355 File Management The data we work with on a computer is kept in a hierarchical file system, the way an operating system has there file management set up effects the user’s ability in accessing and using those folders. According to "Webopedia" (2015), "File management system is the system that an operating system or program uses to organize and keep track of files. For example, a hierarchical file system is one that uses directories to organize files into a tree structure.” If you have ever downloaded a software on your computer you may have noticed how you can find it in the C drive under Program files. The root of this file is the C:\ portion which then stems off into one folder after another to form a tree like structure. For businesses this can be a huge impact on them; without even realizing it they are impacted by the operating system file management they use from storage to security to network. The following paragraphs will say how UNIX file management is set up, along with how it would work in a large company, and also an alternative to the UNIX file management for a large company. First we will start off with how UNIX uses their file management system with another operating system such as Windows. Unlike Windows UNIX has a unique directory structure. In Windows the user will be seeing common file names such as Program File or Users, but in UNIX stuff like a particular application would be scattered into multiple folders....

Words: 836 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

File Management

...File Management UNIX systems are based on the access control of files scheme which was introduced in the very early versions of UNIX. The way this works is that each UNIX user has an assigned unique user identification number which also puts this user ID into a primary group as well as other groups if the user ID needs it. These groups are identified, like the user’s ID, with a group ID. When a user creates a file, it is designated as owned solely by that user and marked with that user’s ID. This file can also be associated with a group with a unique group ID. This file is protected by a set of 12 protection bits. These bits along with the group and owner ID are part of the file’s index node or inode. This inode is a data structure that houses all the information about a file system object except the data content and name. Nine of these protection bits specify execute, write and read permissions for the owner of the file, the other members of the group and all other users. The remaining three outline special behavior for files and directories. A particular user ID is the superuser. This superuser ID is freed from the normal file access control constraints and also has system wide access. Whenever a file or program is set as owned by the superuser, the superuser potentially has unrestricted access to the system and to the users that are using the program. This scheme is acceptable when file access requirements are the same with users and a large number of groups of...

Words: 550 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

File Retention

...Employee Files and Retention In Human Resources the managers must make sure the files are maintained properly, stored properly, and the documents are filed in the appropriate files within the company. There are state laws that have to be followed. When determining where to place a document, the HR department has to consider what information the document contains. Personnel files cannot have documentation with medical, social security numbers or sensitive information (Personnel Records: What should, and should not, be included in the personnel file?, 2015). Most employers have three or four different employment record filing systems (Audit: Personnel Files: Employment (Personnel) Records Audit Checklist (Including Form to Audit Individual Employee Personnel Files), 2014). Personnel files contains employee performance information; confidential records contain non job-related or confidential information; payroll records are usually maintained by the payroll department; I-9 files are filed separately. Personnel records can be maintained by paper or electronically maintained by scanning into a secured system. Personnel Files * Employee applications/Resumes (online applications retention 2 years from the date of personnel action) * Job description. * Pay compensation information. * Letter of Recognition. * Records relating to job such as promotions, demotions, layoffs, training and education. * Warnings, counseling, or disciplinary notes. * Termination...

Words: 537 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

File Management

...File Management Paper There are issues that arise concerning file sharing in a multiuser system, and that is access rights and the management of simultaneous access. Access rights to a file is granted unique users whether singular or grouped. A flexible tool is provided to allow extensive file sharing among the users while providing a number of options so that certain access can be harnessed or controlled (Stallings , 2012). Although a wide range of access is being used, there is still a list of representatives with access rights that can be designated to a certain user for a unique file. One way is masking the existence of the file, leaving the user oblivious to its existence. If by chance the user gain knowledge of the files existence and owner identification, a petition to the owner can be put in place to gain additional access rights. There are ways where the user can load and execute a program with copy restrictions. Propriety programs are an example of this because they are made accessible to users with this restriction (Stallings, 2012). The only user with full access rights and the power to grant rights to others is the owner of the file created. There are also three classes of users provided said access by the owner. One- third of the class is a specific user, which are individual users who are assigned by a user id. User groups is the another class with a set of users that are not defined individually. The final class is granted to all users because the files are...

Words: 793 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

File Management

...File Management File management systems have come a long way since the gigantic filing cabinets. Society has come a long way in an effort to save paper, space, and time. With modern technology and computers in most homes and workplaces file management systems are standard among operating systems. This capability gives businesses and individuals the ability to be organized and successfully archive important documents, images, and videos essential to a company a family or an individual. In the next couple of paragraphs one will read about file management systems the functions of file management systems and how it has made our society more efficient. When talking about file management it used to mean huge filing cabinets loaded with folders marked and organize so that one can easily find documents stuffed in said folders. In today’s world when talking about file management one is referring to electronic file management systems. File management systems are one of the most important aspects of a computer. File management systems have enabled the common person to organize documents images or videos however they see fit. File management systems use hardware components of a computer to save and store data. The hardware components that may be used are hard disk, CD-ROM, external hard drives and so forth. No matter what operating system used whether it’s Linux, Windows, or Mac file management system performs certain duties. One of the duties of a file management system is creating...

Words: 870 - Pages: 4