Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
School leaders matter for school success. Numerous studies spanning the past three
decades link high-quality leadership with positive school outcomes. Recognition of the
importance of school leadership has led to increased attention to recruiting and preparing
school leaders. Many new principal preparation and development programs emphasize
the role of principals as instructional leaders. This emphasis on instructional leadership
was driven in large part by the effective schools movement of the 1970s and 1980s and
has since been renewed because of increasing demands that school leaders be held
accountable for student performance (Hallinger 2005). However, while broad agreement
exists on the importance of instructional leadership, there are fewer consensuses on what
instructional leadership actually is. Some construe instructional leadership as
synonymous with classroom observations and direct teaching of students and teachers.
Informed by observations and interviews in hundreds of schools, we call for a different
view of instructional leadership, one that includes broader personnel practices and
resource allocation practices as central to instructional improvement.
Different ideas a different view of instructional leadership emphasizes organizational
management for instructional improvement rather than dayto-day teaching and learning.
On its face, this reconceptualization may appear to underestimate the importance of
classroom instruction. After all, isnt day-to-day teaching and learning at the heart of
good classroom instruction? Of course, it is. However, the quality of teaching in a school,
in many cases, can be affected only marginally by a principals involvement in the
classroom. School leaders can have a tremendous effect on student learning through the
teachers they hire, how they assign those teachers to classrooms, how they retain
teachers, and how they create opportunities for teachers to improve. Organizational
management for instructional improvement means staffing a school with high-quality
teachers and providing them the appropriate supports and resources to be successful in
the classroom.
2.0
There are many definitions of Instructional Leadership. Two views Southworth turns to
two USA reviews for their perspectives on the nature and focus of instructional
leadership. Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1999) identify instructional leadership as
that which assumes that the critical focus for attention by leaders is the behaviour of
teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students. They
further identify two variants: the narrow, which restricts its focus to teacher behaviours
which enhance pupil learning and the broader type which focuses additionally on other
organisational variables such as school culture which the leadership believes influences
teacher behaviour. Leithwood and his colleagues also note that principals alone cannot
fulfil all of a schools needs for instructional leadership.
Whereas Hallinger and Heck (1997) identify the impact of leadership, both in terms of
category includes of:
i.
Defining school mission;
ii.
Managing the instructional programme;
iii.
Promoting the school climate and in terms of mode of impact:
a.
direct;
b.
mediated; and
c.
reciprocal.
They conclude that a primary avenue of influence lies in the shaping of the schools
direction through vision, mission and goals, and suggest that the broader approach is
more effective because it encompasses the indirect as well as the direct impacts, and is
also more likely to encourage others to share the responsibilities of instructional
leadership (the narrower approach tends conversely to foster the notion of heroic
leadership).
One major emphasis in the educational arena in the early 21st century has been the
continuing demand for greater accountability to increase student performance. National
and state expectations require schools to ensure that all students achieve mastery of
curriculum objectives, and local schools focus on implementing those requirements to the
best of their ability. As a result, leading instructional efforts in a school has evolved into a
primary role for school principals.
In order to meet the challenges associated with national and state expectations, principals
must focus on teaching and learning especially in terms of measurable student progress,
to a greater degree than heretofore. Consequently, today's principals concentrate on
building a vision for their schools, sharing leadership with teachers, and influencing
schools to operate as learning communities. Accomplishing these essential school
improvement efforts requires gathering and assessing data to determine needs, and
monitoring instruction and curriculum to determine if the identified needs are addressed.
2.1
Clearly, multiple role expectations exist for school leaders. All schools need
principals to exercise their roles as instructional leaders who ensure the quality of
instruction. Thus, there is a need to spend time in classrooms observing the
process of teaching and learning while also balancing other needs such as student
safety and parent relationships.
Fulfilling these multiple responsibilities well requires principals to possess an
inner compass that consistently points them toward the future interests of the
school, never losing sight of their schools' visions, missions, and goals.
Successful principals understand that it is important to establish clear learning
goals and garner schoolwide and even community wide commitment to these
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
goals. The development of a clear vision and goals for learning is emphasized by
principals of high-achieving schools. They hold high expectations that teachers
and students will meet these goals and hold themselves accountable for the
success of the school. These principals provide emotional support for teachers and
are viewed as possessing the ability to foster positive interpersonal relationships.
They protect instructional time by limiting loudspeaker announcements and
scheduling building maintenance to minimize disruptions. They ensure that
student progress is monitored through the continual aggregation and
disaggregation of student performance data that are directly related to the school's
mission and goals. Principals of high-achieving schools are confident that they
will accomplish their vision and goals despite challenges and setbacks and, thus,
serve as role models for staff and students.
2.2
Sharing Leadership
Guiding a school staff to reach a common vision requires intensive and sustained
collaboration. After all, it is the expertise of teachers upon which any quality
educational system is built. Wise principals know that going it alone makes
meeting instructional goals virtually impossible. A key responsibility of school
leaders is to sustain learning, and this can best be accomplished through leading
learning endeavors that are focused on long-term outcomes rather than short-term
returns. Additionally, distributing leadership throughout a school and providing
for leadership succession are indispensable to a school's success.
2.3
2.4
and promote teacher reflection about instruction and its effect on student
achievement.
3.0
ARTICLES REVIEW
Blase and Blases Handbook of Instructional Leadership definite that, how really good
principals promote teaching and learning (1998) is summarised separately as part of the
resources presented to the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). In his paper,
Southworth highlights their finding that instructional leaders value a blend of supervision,
staff development and curriculum development. Within their institutions, the promotion
of teachers professional development was seen to be the most influential practice.
Southworth notes that, as with the other two studies he describes, Blase and Blase favour
a broader approach to instructional leadership.
800
USA teachers
accounts of their own principals positive and negative characteristics, and their views of
how those characteristics affected their performance as teachers. From this, emerged
three aspects of effective instructional leadership:
i.
Talking with teachers;
ii.
Promoting teachers professional growth; and
iii.
Fostering teacher reflection.
These were tied to headteachers behaviour in terms of:
i.
Being visible;
ii.
Praising results; and
iii.
Extending autonomy.
At the heart of all this is the matter of interaction, with good instructional leaders
realising that most teachers expand their teaching range only with carefully designed
support and assistance (Blase and Blase, 1998). That vital interaction was seen to
demand a range of expertise from the principal, from classroom observation and data
gathering, to awareness of the teachers stage of development, and reflective
communication skills. The Blases note that developing evidence-informed approaches to
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
learning schools must facilitate teachers pedagogic growth, since the development of
their teaching skills and repertoires seem to me to be the major content area. The
curriculum of learning schools should be pedagogy. He also finds a correlation between
instructional leadership and certain organisational conditions associated with learning
communities. The conditions which leaders might benefit from monitoring are identified
as a teacher-culture of collaboration, in which formal and informal professional dialogue
is the norm, including challenge and debate, enquiry into pupils perspectives on their
own learning.
Thus the school becomes a teaching and learning school, with the most hospitable
environment for the exercise of instructional leadership because professional cultures
characterised by openness, trust and security appear to be the ones where teachers feel
confident to become learners. Southworth closes by reflecting that, in a world where
more and more enterprises are interested in developing themselves as learning
organisations, it is time for school leaders to present themselves as leaders of teachers
par excellence.
Another review is on a case study by Daniel O. Poirer in 2009 about A Principals and
Teachers Perceptions and Understandings of Instructional Leadership. The main
question of this research was about the differences that might exist between a principals
and teachers perceptions and understandings of instructional leadership and supervision
within a school. The significance of the study was that it helped to provide an explanation
of the existing role of instructional leadership and supervision within the context of a
school. The knowledge gained through describing the principals and teachers
perceptions and understandings of instructional leaders and supervision may allow the
principal to develop the role as instructional 4 leaders within the school. The information
of the study was collected from one principal and four teachers. The study described,
identified, and analyzed a principals and a staffs understandings and perceptions of the
role of instructional leadership and supervision. This is a qualitative research where it
builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants,
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
and conducts the study in a natural setting (Creswell, 1998, p.15). Creswell noted that
distinct methodological traditions included biographical life history, 41 phenomenology,
grounded theory study, ethnography, and case study. The case study was used as the
qualitative method.
The data collected from the principal were analyzed and coded into common patterns,
themes, generalizations, and categories. The same process was applied to the teachers
responses, with an additional comparison among the teachers responses to identify
similarities and differences in perceptions. Finally, the principals responses were
compared to the teachers responses to find the commonalities and differences in
perceptions as related to the patterns, themes, and research questions. The process was to
identify themes that are salient, characteristic features in a case. This process was
conducted manually and did not rely on a computer program to find the constructs,
patterns and themes.
The finding shows the teachers perceptions in Instructional Leadership. Four teachers
were stratified-randomly selected to be part of the study, Mrs. Indigo, Mrs. Orange, Mrs.
Violet and Mrs. Red. Three participants had taught for nearly 20 years and one had been
teaching for nearly 15 years. According to Tuckman (1994), stratified random sampling
allows the researcher to put parameter(s) on selecting the sample and in this case the
parameter was grade level. Two participants had taught in the primary grades (pre-K-3)
and two in the elementary grades (grades 4-6). All teachers had their Bachelor of
Education degrees and two teachers had secretarial diplomas. None of the participants
had any experience in administration.
The principals and teachers perceptions of instructional leadership and supervision
provided an understanding of the importance of the principals leadership role in the
school. The main focus for every participant was on receiving support needed for all
school members to be effective, and on the importance of the personal characteristics of
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
10
the principal. The principals instructional leadership was exhibited by his modeling a
love of learning and his focus on improving instruction, so all students could feel success,
despite their personal limitations.
Mr. Green felt the principals major function as instructional leader was to establish
school culture by working collaboratively and providing support for teachers, so they
could teach effectively. The teachers themselves valued the principal who supported
teachers personally and professionally, and who exhibited the necessary knowledge,
skills, and abilities to be effective. In addition, teachers believed the principal must be
compassionate, empathetic, and passionate about learning. Therefore, the principals
leadership provided the framework for the school to function positively. Further, both the
principal and teachers emphasized the importance of creating a positive and supportive
working environment, which focused on collaboration, collegiality, and professionalism.
The principals and teachers perceptions of supervision differed on whether the purpose
of supervision was evaluative or for teacher growth. The principal and two teachers did
perceive the purpose of supervision was for teacher growth. All teachers mentioned that
formal supervision was evaluative. Mr. Green used an informal approach to supervision
to reduce the evaluative and threatening aspect of supervision, creating a non-threatening
opportunity for teacher growth and teacher recognition.
In another study by Janet C. Quint, Theresa M. Akey, Shelley Rappaport and Cynthia J.
Willner (2007) on Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and Student Achievement.
It conducted at 49 elementary schools in three districts, or sites include of the Austin,
Texas; Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Region 10 within New York City. This is a qualitative
research, including interviews with high-level district officials for the study districts,
enabled researchers to gain a better understanding of the work. Further, case studies
involving daylong visits to eight schools across the three sites helped illuminate the
findings from close-ended surveys. The analysis uses multiple regression analysis to
ascertain the extent to which outcomes at each step of the theory of action are associated
11
with (that is, are statistically linked to) outcomes at the one or two preceding steps in the
theory.
Data from teacher surveys and classroom observations at individual schools were
aggregated so that, in all the regression analyses, the school is the unit of analysis.Since
the goal of the study is to examine the nature of the relationships between the steps in the
theory of action independent of other factors that may influence the outcomes, additional
measures that is the principals length of experience, the average experience of the
teachers at the school, and indicators for the three school districts in the study which are
included in every analysis in order to control for the effects of these factors.
The finding shows that the principals involvement in the professional development
environments at their schools include of:
i.
Greater receipt of instruction-related professional development on the part of
principals and a greater value attached to that professional development are both
significantly and positively associated with the principals involvement in
ii.
In conjunction with one another, these findings suggest that delivering instruction related
professional development to principals may be an effective first step toward increasing
opportunities for professional development offered to teachers at their schools. Principals
who reported receiving more instruction-related professional development and valuing it
more were more likely to organize formal professional development for their teachers and
otherwise to engage with their teachers in instructional improvement efforts. In schools
where principals reported greater involvement in these activities, teachers also reported
receiving more professional development; while such concurrence is to be hoped for, it is
by no means assured.
12
4.0
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN
SCHOOLS
One of the impacts of Instuctional Leadership on school is on the culture and support.
Both the teachers and the principal identified the importance of personal and professional
support that was necessary so that both could do their jobs effectively. An effective
principal, the priority as instructional leader must be to establish a positive school culture.
A principal affects school culture by having high expectations for all student
achievement; despite students limitations, they must all achieve success based on their
abilities. It is noted that if students were to be successful, teachers needed a positive
school environment, which would allow teachers to function properly. Therefore, a
positive culture created an environment conducive to learning, which was promoted by a
principal providing support. The teachers also identified support as a crucial component
for a principal to be an effective instructional leader, but also for teachers to do their job
properly.
The principal and teachers discussed the need for personal and professional support
through collaboration, flexibility, open communication, and awareness of all that is
happening in the school. The principal noted the value of having teachers feel good about
themselves and knowing that they were successful at their job. The teachers emphasized
that they played an important role in helping the principal to be an effective instructional
leader by supporting their principal through collaboration, cooperation, communication,
and professionalism. In terms of the school divisions role in supporting the principal, the
teachers did not really know what opportunities the school division provided in this
realm. On the other hand, the principal noted that the school division did provide support
through professional development for principals and teachers. For teachers, the main
focus of professional development was on curriculum.
The impact of instructional leadership on the school, the teachers focus was on the
personal and professional qualities of the principal, which permitted the principals to
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
13
work collaboratively with teachers. The principal emphasized the support needed from
division office so a principal could support his teachers. Overall, both perspectives
reinforced the development of teachers skills and abilities. However, participants
provided different approaches to achieve that goal.
One of the study found that in effective principal-teacher interaction about instruction,
processes such as inquiry, reflection, exploration, and experimentation result, the teachers
build repertoires of flexible alternatives rather than collecting rigid teaching procedures
and methods. The model of effective instructional leadership was derived directly from
the data; it consists of the two major themes: talking with teachers to promote reflection
and promoting professional growth. According to the data, effective principals valued
dialog that encouraged teachers to critically reflect on their learning and professional
practice. Principals made suggestions to teachers both during postobservation
conferences and informally, in day-to-day interactions. The effect of these behaviors was
to enhance teachers' reflective behavior (example using greater variety in teaching,
responding to student diversity, planning more carefully, and taking more risks).
Teachers reported positive effects on their motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy,
sense of security, and feelings of support.
Talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional growth are the
two major dimensions of effective instructional leadership, as reported by teachers.
Each of the instructional leadership strategies have strong ``enhancing effects'' on
teachers, emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally. We also note that principals who are
defined as effective instructional leaders by teachers tended to use a wide range of the
strategies described in this article. These strategies were used frequently and seemed to
enhance one another.
Moreover, principals' leadership reflected a firm belief in teacher choice and discretion,
non-threatening and growth-oriented interaction, and sincere and authentic interest.
Teachers were not forced to teach in limited ways, nor were they criticized by their
instructional leaders. Put differently, our findings suggest that effective instructional
HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
14
CONCLUSION
Instructional leadership differs from that of a school administrator or manager in a
number of ways. Principals who pride themselves as administrators are too preoccupied
in dealing with strictly administrative duties compared to principals who are instructional
leaders. The latter role involves setting clear goals, allocating resources to instruction,
managing the curriculum, monitoring lesson plans, and evaluating teachers. In short,
instructional leadership are those actions that a principal takes, or delegates to others, to
promote growth in student learning. The instructional leader makes instructional quality
the top priority of the school and attempts to bring that vision to realisation. As
conclusion, instructional leadership was found to be crucial for optimum teaching and
learning, requiring training for all members of the school community. The teacher is the
instructional leader in the classroom with the full and knowledgeable support of the
Principal in a school which prioritises teaching and learning for all members through
mutual sharing and respect.
6.0
REFERENCES
Balu, Rekha, Eileen L. Horng, and Susanna Loeb, (2010). Strategic Personnel
Management: How School Principals Recruit, Retain, Develop and Remove Teachers.
School Leadership Research, Working Paper 10-6. Stanford, Calif.: Institute for Research
on Education Policy and Practice.
15
Blase, J and Blase, J, (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: how really good
principals promote teaching and learning, Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press Hallinger.
Bteille, Tara, Demetra Kalogrides, and Susanna Loeb, (2009). Effective Schools:
Managing the Recruitment, Development, and Retention of High-Quality Teachers.
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER),
Working Paper 37. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Chase, G., & Kane, M. (1983). The principal as instructional leader: How much more
time before we act? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Grissom, Jason, and Susanna Loeb, (2009). Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How
Perspectives of Parents, Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central
Importance of Managerial Skills. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Education Research (CALDER), Working Paper 35. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute.
Hallinger, Phillip (2005). Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing
Fancy That Refuses to Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4, no. 3.
Horng, Eileen L., Daniel Klasik, and Susanna Loeb, (2010). Principal Time-Use and
School Effectiveness. American Journal of Education 116, no. 4: 492- 523.
Horng, Eileen L., Susanna Loeb, and Dan Mindich, (2010). Teachers Support-Seeking
Behaviors and
Leadership
Education
16
17