On November 2, 1996, the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), a program of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), adopted a set of Standards for School Leaders (CCSSO, 1996). By 2005, 41 states had adopted or adapted these Standards (Sanders & Simpson, 2005). However, after almost a decade of experience with the Standards, states asked the Council to update them. So, in 2005, the Council began working with the National Policy Board for Educational Administration to accomplish this (CCSSO, 2007). First, they designed a State Policy Framework to Develop Highly Qualified Administrators (Sanders & Simpson, 2005). Central to developing a new set of standards was their plan to update and clarify each main ISLLC standard, enhancing the focus on teaching, learning, and success for all students, and addressing key issues affecting schools, e.g., increased accountability, cultural competencies, and community engagement. The revisions also sought to adapt the Standards to tiered or differentiated licensure structures, to changes in school leaders' roles, responsibilities, and authority, and to better address the issue of administrator dispositions (CCSSO, 2007). On December 12, 2007, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) adopted the new standards, entitled the "Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration" (CCSSO, 2008). As Murphy (2003) had concluded about the 1996 Standards, "they have exerted considerable pull on the profession of school administration, considerably more than almost anyone could have anticipated" (p. 39). There is every reason to believe the new Standards will be equally influential. With 41 states adopting or adapting the Standards as the basis of their educational leadership preparation programs, and many of those states also using them as a foundation for the evaluation of practicing school administrators, the Standards clearly will shape practice. The purpose of this article is to examine them closely and to reflect upon what specific implications they may have for educational planning.