In the U.S. today, instructional leaders must comply with accountability policies that determine effectiveness of education programs according to scores on high-stakes standardized tests (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). Standardized assessment has long been a part of the U.S. educational system, yet somehow warnings attached to these high stakes tests have been lost, forgotten, quieted, over time. In 1926, the nonprofit College Board introduced the Scholastic Aptitude Test with this cautionary note: This ….test should be regarded merely as a supplementary record. To place too great an emphasis on test scores is as dangerous as the failure properly to evaluate a score" (Otto, 1991). Yet today we are seeing standardized assessment being used as the single indicator of effectiveness-a great misstep from simply using it as a supplemental record. How did this happen? What is the role of instructional leadership in this context? The purpose of this paper is to propose, based upon empirical evidence from study of curriculum directors and the literature, a new model of instructional leadership in the context of the current accountability era.Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical framework begins with an examination of literature on instructional leadership as a directive approach in effective schools (e.g. Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985) to the most recent model, known as collaborative instructional leadership, that includes the voices of teachers and parents along with administrators as co-leaders of educational reform (Jackson, 2000; Marks & Printy, 2003). While these leadership models offer many understandings, they do not consider a larger view of the current political context. They do not consider the role of wisdom. Based upon this research, wisdom-centered leadership is characteristic of grounded instructional leadership in a high-stakes accountability context. We also draw on Ray's (2000) view regarding six areas of activity or wisdom "truths" that provide us with a larger theoretical lens for considering instructional leadership. The Study: Research Methods and DesignThis paper presents findings from a multi-case study of US curriculum directors that examined many issues related to collaborative instructional leadership in the area of literacy (First Author Citation). Twelve Curriculum directors with expertise in literacy curriculum leadership and collaboration were purposely selected for the study (Hunter's reputational method, 1953, as modified by Brunner, 1998). All twelve directors were also selected because they served in districts with evidence of long-term involvement in literacy reform linked to gains in student outcomes. Data collection involved additional interviews, site document analysis, and participant observation and was concurrent with data analysis, following guidelines for the constant comparative method (Conrad, 2001; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).Wisdom Centered Instructional Leadership: Three CasesIn this paper, we present three cases in which the curriculum directors centered their instructional leadership practices and beliefs on wisdom principles. Six themes emerged in these cases which together indicate not only the beliefs and practices of effective instructional leadership in districts with successful literacy improvement, but also how these curriculum directors manage to respond to external policies in wise, humane ways: 1) generosity, 2) self-discipline, 3) patience, 4) appropriate effort, 5) concentration, and 6) wisdom. Each of these themes is explained in detail in the paper. Conclusions and ImplicationsThe curriculum directors in these cases show us that to remain grounded in the wisdom of the education profession while implementing current policies may be the best answer to pressing questions and challenges of the current political context. These instructional leaders offer a more expansive view of instructional leadership, one that emphasizes the an essential perspective necessary to offer teachers and community members hope, collective power, and support to respond to current accountability policies. ReferencesBrunner, C.C., "Can power support an ethic of care? An examination of the professional practices of women superintendents", Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4 (Vol. 2, 1998): 142-175. Conrad, C.F. "Grounded Theory: An Alternative Perspective to Research in HigherEducation" in Qualitative research in higher education: Experiencing alternative perspectives and perspectives: second edition, ed. Clifton F. Conrad, Jennifer Grant Haworth & Lisa Lattuca, Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 2001): 279-286.Edmonds, R. (1979).Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, p. 15-24.Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967).Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. "The Social Context of Effective Schools, American Journal of Education 94 (3): 328-355.Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journal: Perspectives on leadership. School Leadership and Management. 20 (1), 61-78. Marks, H. & Printy, S. "Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformation and Instructional Leadership", Educational Administration Quarterly 4 (November 2003): 293-331.No Child Left Behind Act, Stronger Accountability for Stronger Results, Retrieved September28, 2003 from the World Wide Web www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.Otto, W. (1991). Pro bono publico (For the public good). Journal of Reading, 35, 152- 155.Ray, R. A. (2000) Indestructible Truth. (Boston, MA: Shambala)