Educational Leadership and School Management - Coursework Example

Abstract

The primary purpose of the study is to evaluate the instructional leadership practices from the view of the school head or principal. It draws from a systematic review of relevant literature discovered in peer-reviewed journals. The review seeks to establish if the notion of a principal as an instructional leader holds merit and has sufficient data to support the construct. The paper seeks to answer the role of a principal as an instructional leader by identifying three distinct domains. Moreover, it establishes data that supports and some that outweigh the principal as an instructional leader construct. The review looks at the international construct of instructional leadership as practised in various school settings. In so doing, it identified factors that make instructional leadership an in-vogue concept. In conclusion, some areas of further analysis have been highlighted.

Introduction

Elmore (2000) coined the term instructional leadership to highlight instructional practices in the view of enhancing the outcomes of learners (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2010). Scholars remarked that a good school is a sign of a good principal. In fact, principals are the most visible school leaders and are a vital part of the school environment since they guide the staff, community and learners. They are responsible for operational excellence, and promotion of quality teaching and learning. Consequently, it is prudent to have an instructional leader at the helm of a school (Zepeda, 1999). Other scholars like Bush, Bell, and Middlewood (2010) remark that the principal, being the chief instructional leader, is supposed to impact on the classroom practice positively ensuring that learner outcomes are improved (p.9). School leadership that is deemed effective encompasses the amalgamation of customary leadership duties like maintenance of facilities, scheduling, evaluation of teachers and budgeting, with an intense involvement in particular features of learning and teaching.

The concept of instructional leadership is not a new one. It has formed part of the education discourse since the later part of the 20th century (Hallinger, 2009). However, in the onset of the 21st century, it was eclipsed by School-Based Management and transformational leadership. Nonetheless, it became in vogue since 1990. Hallinger (2009) further posits that the increase in calls for accountability has re-focused the attention to school improvement and learning outcomes. Therefore, this essay will highlight key findings discovered from the literature review on instructional leadership. The review will focus on the role of a principal as the instructional leader of a school. First, it will seek to contextualise the concept of instructional leadership. Within the contextualisation, the review will mention leadership and management and tie it to the idea of instructional leadership. It will then determine various critiques in support of and against the concept of the principal as an instructional leader. During the review, the paper will briefly comment on the domains of instructional leadership. Thereafter it will close with concluding remarks.

Methodology

The review of literature relied on peer-reviewed articles which discussed the broad matters of a principal as an instructional leader and their role effectiveness. The search for the articles applied a number of search parameters that could adequately capture various seminal authors who examined the role of the principal as an instructional leader. Some of these search terms include instructional leader, principal, accountability, school leadership, impact and a combination thereof. During the research, there were identified numerous connections between topics and subthemes. The search yielded many peer-reviewed articles that are applied in this review. Subsequently, further articles within the identified papers were also employed in this study. From the identified literature a meta-synthesis was performed. It involved a close scrutiny of the identified literature whilst making certain that the seminal topic authors were identified.

Instructional Leadership

Leadership and Management

The concept of leadership is defined by a plethora of definitions; although, there are three essential dimensions. One, leadership is a process that involves intentional influence from an individual over others so as to offer guidance, structure, and facilitate relationships and group activities (Yukl, 2012, p.3-5). Second, leadership is closely associated with values such as professional and personal principles and which are expected to be predominant (Fullan, 2009; Bush, 2010). Lastly, leadership is related to a positive, realistic and credible vision for an organisation (Nanus, 1995). Building on that, leadership is closely related to management. Hence, scholars aver that there are three managerial game plans that promote operational effectiveness in a school (Clarke, 2007). As is related to this literature review, leadership denotes the processes by which school heads sway other stakeholders for instance learners, teachers and the community all in a bid to achieve the school’s mission of promoting overall improvement and learner outcomes. Conversely, management is the application of organisational resources aimed at achievable objectives. In this literature review, these two words may sometimes be used interchangeably.

Instructional leadership

Academics have commented that instructional leadership is closely linked to learning and teaching, encompassing the growth of a student and the professional development of a teacher (Southworth, 2002, p.79). Instructional leaders go further and develop a vision that calls for excellence and increased expectations from all school stakeholders. Their ultimate goal is to enhance teaching and learning (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2010).

Instructional Leadership Domain or Practices

The first pertinent instructional leadership practice is the definition of a mission (Van Deventer & Kruger, 2003). It entails two aspects: definition of the goals and the communication of those goals. The framing of the goals is a consultative process that involves the principal working together with the staff to develop quantifiable, vibrant and time-based objectives, and all focused on improving student outcomes (Setwong & Prasertcharoensuk, 2013). Consequently, the principal then articulates these objectives to other relevant stakeholders in an effort to get their buy-in (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Brown & Chai, 2012).

The next domain is the management of the instructional programme. In this instance, the focus is on the management of the pedagogical practices and the curriculum. It involves the evaluation and supervision of the instructional programme, curriculum coordination and the administration of the learner’s progress (Van Deventer & Kruger, 2009). Moreover, Hallinger, and Murphy (1985) posit that the task of the school head is to manage, motivate and monitor instructional practices. Hence, teachers should have the necessary pedagogical skills plus should be devoted to continuous school improvement. This task, as Hallinger (2009) remarked, requires that the principal not act as a one-man army, but instead needs to practice distributed leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership.

The next domain involves the promotion of a positive school environment. This includes things like the promotion of professional growth for the staff, principals being visible and present in schools, protection of instructional time, incentivising the teachers, instituting high standards and rewarding high achieving learners (Hallinger, 2005). This is the broadest, both in scope and intention, of all the practices of an instructional leader since in incorporates aspects such as Professional Learning Communities, and teacher professional development (Hallinger, 2009). Ultimately, it falls on the school heads to mould principles and values that enhance excellence.

International Context of Instructional Leadership

Reitzug, West, and Angel (2008) alluded to four instructional leadership conceptions. Generally, instructional leadership is seen as the onus of school principals. The study expounded on the understanding of school principals daily administrative duties and their resultant advancement in instructional leadership. The paper identifies problematic aspects and conceptions of instructional leadership. These conceptions are relational, linear, organic and prophetic instructional leadership. They allude to principals’ instructional leadership roles of promoting relationships, aligning standards, curriculum goals and assessments, evaluation of outcomes, facilitation of collaborative reflections and interactions (Weber, 1987; Southworth, 2002) and should be about a higher calling involving ethics and morals.

Instructional leadership research on British schools identified three crucial strategies that would enhance the efficacy of learning and teaching (Southworth, 2002). One strategy is modelling which is important since principals and teachers are regularly ‘on show’. It implies that a teacher’s pedagogical practice should be a template for others to emulate and the promotion of core practices and values. Simply put, principals are the standard setters. They concluded that the main aim of the principal is to create an exemplary institution that provides excellent instruction.

Other researchers Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) focused on instructional leadership practices of East Asian schools. They observed that dispersed instructional leadership contributed to a straightforward metamorphosis between programmes and overall school success. Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) relied on instructional leadership theory and distributed leadership theory as the theoretical bedrocks of the inquiry. The reliance on the exclusive actions of the principals as a concept of instructional leadership was questioned by Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012). Other academics like Hallinger (2005) and Fullan (2009), however, questioned the idea of a hero leader which put unnecessary pressure on one person. On that note, Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) remarked that the contributions of school stakeholders should be examined. The study proposed three significant instructional leadership practices for the IB schools in East Asia: cross-program activities, leadership utilisation of articulation strategies that is documentation and backward mapping, and strategic staffing.

The importance of dispersed instructional leadership in a school setting was also highlighted by Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) and Heck and Hallinger (2009). However, these studies differ from the position taken by Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) which is considered more authoritative. The inquiry by Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) was considered more methodical due to the employment of case studies in five different countries, in-school observations and interviews.

Other researchers have focused on time as a determinant of learner achievement outcomes and the improvement of schools (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013). The research by Grissom, Loeb, and Master’s (2013) focused on time spent on instructional leadership practices, and it pinpointed practices like coaching of teachers, classroom walkthroughs and enhancement of the instructional programme. Principals who took more time in improving instructional programs and coaching teachers, interestingly, had a positive influence on the learning outcomes. Conversely, those that insisted on classroom walkthroughs had unfavourable outcomes. The research by Grissom, Loeb, and Master’s (2013) borrows from Downey, Poston, Steffy, English, and Frase (2004) three-minute walkthrough idea. Its underlying purpose is to collect focused data within a short time frame based on five steps of observation that zero in on instruction and curriculum. The fundamental importance of the model by Downey, Poston, Steffy, English, and Frase (2004) and borrowed by Grissom, Loeb, and Master’s (2013), is to promote teacher professional growth through reflection. Additionally, the principal’s role is defined more as coaching and less as supervisory or judgemental. The model is credited with improving pedagogical practices, reducing instances of indiscipline and promoting a culture of instructional collaboration (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013).

Critique against Instructional Leadership

The principal’s role as an instructional leader may be limited due to the other additional duties attached to the school head (Fink & Resnick, 2001). Some schools, particularly American schools, have a structure that is divided into two lines. One line is the school support line while the other is the administrative line. Principals are on the administrative line which is less aligned to tasks associated with instruction and learning or collaboration and support of teachers. It is more inclined to administrative tasks and responsibilities, and the day-to-day functioning of the school. Fink and Resnick (2001) further observed that these tasks take up too much time and the principal becomes less accustomed to teaching. Hence, if any assistance or concern is raised it is resolved by those in the support line. This observation is advanced by the growing opinion for teacher’s autonomy, and their wish to pronounce their professional judgement, without unnecessary critique from school heads who they deem as unknowledgeable in regards to matters of teaching. Fink and Resnick (2001) cited that the school support line is the one responsible for teachers’ professional development, curriculum and instruction. However, just as school principals lose touch with classroom matters so too do those in the support line get unacquainted with administration matters. Instructional leadership where the principals remain in control of all administrative matters as well as take up the responsibility of coaching teachers is not compatible since principals have already lost touch of the realities with the classroom.

Nonetheless, Fink and Resnick (2001) proposed an alternative model that could address this dilemma. The model proposes relationships at all education levels from the classroom to the school head, professional development department, curriculum support and superintendents. This model by Fink and Resnick was based on research done in various district schools, but it lacks a proper peer review. It requires further investigation to substantiate their proposed model. Nonetheless, their observations cast doubt on the viability of a principal as an instructional leader.

Other scholars, Stiggins and Duke (2008), similarly observed that there are perceivable deficits in principals to properly assess and understand, as required of an instructional leader. They agree that the ideas, concepts and training programmes for instructional leadership for principals assist in enhancing student outcomes but falls short in one fundamental area. Principals are not provided with the requisite skills, education and training to support teachers while they are developing classroom assessments. Principals practising instructional leadership are well equipped in observation, modern teaching methods, curriculum alignment; however, they do lack the ability to evaluate the success of alterations done in the area of instruction. Stiggins and Duke (2008) insisted that principals should support teachers both at the classroom and program level and support the school in evaluating the programme’s effectiveness. Additionally, the principals must be proficient in communicating the analysis and interpretation of the assessment data be it in a small or large setting. A proper grasp of the assessment environment puts into perspective the many lenses that administrators must use to evaluate assessments so that they can achieve their functions as instructional leaders. The view put forward by Stiggins and Duke (2008) is contrary to the conventional notions of instructional leadership and suggest that further development needs to be done on it.

Some have questioned the idealism of instructional leadership and its appropriateness in the modern education system. Horng and Loeb (2010) in their research commented on the long-standing connection between student achievement and strong leadership, and that new programs are established to highlight the role of a principal as an instructional leader. The ideal principal characterised as an instructional leader spends a good amount of time in the classroom, offers feedback to teachers and who as a teacher had skill in directing curriculum and instruction. Even with all these traits, they argue that it is below what education and administration demand today. Particularly, they point out that providing feedback is a logistical nightmare (Horng & Loeb, 2010). In their paper, they did provide an alternative to the problem, Horng and Loeb (2010) recommended that organisational management should act as a catalyst for improving instructional leadership. Their conclusion came from a survey of 32000 teachers and 1900 administrators where they gathered that focusing solely on classroom was too restrictive for an instructional leader. And that the best performing schools had effective organisational managers. Their research deduces that the instructional leadership lens is too narrow which they supported by verifiable empirical data and research.

Researchers Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2009) conducted a longitudinal study to determine if the actions of principals had any repercussions on student outcomes. It discovered that principals who focused more on activities that fostered organisational behaviour fared better than those who focused on the narrow notion of instructional leadership. Their study was based on six broad areas: instructional program, organisation management, administrative responsibilities, external relations, internal relations and daily instruction. Principals spent most of their time addressing discipline issues. Even with the shift in concentration to instructional leadership, principles still spent less than 10% of their time on daily instruction. They observed that if a principal centred on day-to-day instruction, then parents and staff perceived that the learning environment was deteriorating, and the converse is true. Nonetheless, the research was limited to one location, described data for only one week and failed to consider the context of the action of the principals.

Critique Supporting Instructional Leadership

One of the initial papers discussing the relationship between principal and instructional leadership investigated the relationship between student outcomes and principals (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). The academics concluded that the time from 1980 to 1995 saw immense progress in the modelling of the instructional leadership idea. Nevertheless, they were limited by the lack of capacity to implement the concept so that they can conclusively research it by applying conceptual and methodological approaches. Their research hence focused on research that had been done up until that time—a collection of sorts.

Research by Fullan (2000) was the foundation for further inquiry into school effectiveness. He asserted that effective schools and effective principals go hand in hand. The examination, if principals’ actions were related to change in schools, was focused on determining if the change depended on instructional leadership actions. The research drew similar conclusions as Fink and Resnick (2001) and Stiggins and Duke (2008) that the responsibilities of the principal had expanded, especially considering rise in calls for accountability of standardised assessments. Fullan (2000) asserted that instructional leadership was part of an effective school head and not the only thing. They had other responsibilities such as efficient management, inclusiveness and providing support. In subsequent inquiry, Fullan (2002) broadened the parameters so as to determine if principals should practice instructional leadership, and focused more on what effective principals ought to do. The inquiry by Fullan (2000) had well-referenced literature. It is praised for its application of qualitative research, which assists it validating the findings.

Another scholar Elmore (2000) praised instructional leadership as a way of reinforcing learner achievement. The research also highlighted its limitations and challenges. Nonetheless, Elmore’s literature review concluded that the challenge was not instructional leadership, rather it was its inconsistent application. Elmore (2000) observed that many principals did not view instructional leadership as essential or applying to them, and only depended on who was interested in it. It was not part and parcel of their roles. Fink and Resnick (2001) observations support those of Elmore (2000). They posited that the deviation from instructional leadership roles was due to the disconnection from learning and teaching since the key role of the school heads had shifted to administrative duties. In spite of that, Elmore (2000) concluded that there was limited effect of instructional leadership due to its haphazard implementation and concluded that it must be applied as the cornerstone of improving instruction and learning. And, all other attributes of leadership should stem from it.

Conclusion

The past decades have witnessed the tremendous growth of literature that covers instructional leadership. It has metamorphosed from theory into practice applied in schools and internalised by principals and teachers. Although there is some contention over what are the best practices that appropriately corroborate instructional leadership, researchers, have across the board, been in consensus supporting its adoption regarding principals putting more time into learning and teaching. Nonetheless, many speculate on what practices and aspects, like relationships, play a part in promoting the achievement of learners.

Additional research needs to be conducted to identify processes that would equip principals with success factors. Moreover, a quantitative research on what practises and characteristics are aligned to enhanced student achievement is essential. As literature grows, it will answer some of these queries as well as establish new ones. Future queries need to focus on principal practices that have shown greatest correlation to student achievement and which also ensure protection of valuable relationships with all school stakeholders.

Methodology

The review of literature relied on peer-reviewed articles which discussed the broad matters of a principal as an instructional leader and their role effectiveness. The search for the articles applied a number of search parameters that could adequately capture various seminal authors who examined the role of the principal as an instructional leader. Some of these search terms include instructional leader, principal, accountability, school leadership, impact and a combination thereof. During the research, there were identified numerous connections between topics and subthemes. The search yielded many peer-reviewed articles that are applied in this review. Subsequently, further articles within the identified papers were also employed in this study. From the identified literature a meta-synthesis was performed. It involved a close scrutiny of the identified literature whilst making certain that the seminal topic authors were identified.

Instructional Leadership

Leadership and Management

The concept of leadership is defined by a plethora of definitions; although, there are three essential dimensions. One, leadership is a process that involves intentional influence from an individual over others so as to offer guidance, structure, and facilitate relationships and group activities (Yukl, 2012, p.3-5). Second, leadership is closely associated with values such as professional and personal principles and which are expected to be predominant (Fullan, 2009; Bush, 2010). Lastly, leadership is related to a positive, realistic and credible vision for an organisation (Nanus, 1995). Building on that, leadership is closely related to management. Hence, scholars aver that there are three managerial game plans that promote operational effectiveness in a school (Clarke, 2007). As is related to this literature review, leadership denotes the processes by which school heads sway other stakeholders for instance learners, teachers and the community all in a bid to achieve the school’s mission of promoting overall improvement and learner outcomes. Conversely, management is the application of organisational resources aimed at achievable objectives. In this literature review, these two words may sometimes be used interchangeably.

Instructional leadership

Academics have commented that instructional leadership is closely linked to learning and teaching, encompassing the growth of a student and the professional development of a teacher (Southworth, 2002, p.79). Instructional leaders go further and develop a vision that calls for excellence and increased expectations from all school stakeholders. Their ultimate goal is to enhance teaching and learning (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2010).

Instructional Leadership Domain or Practices

The first pertinent instructional leadership practice is the definition of a mission (Van Deventer & Kruger, 2003). It entails two aspects: definition of the goals and the communication of those goals. The framing of the goals is a consultative process that involves the principal working together with the staff to develop quantifiable, vibrant and time-based objectives, and all focused on improving student outcomes (Setwong & Prasertcharoensuk, 2013). Consequently, the principal then articulates these objectives to other relevant stakeholders in an effort to get their buy-in (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Brown & Chai, 2012).

The next domain is the management of the instructional programme. In this instance, the focus is on the management of the pedagogical practices and the curriculum. It involves the evaluation and supervision of the instructional programme, curriculum coordination and the administration of the learner’s progress (Van Deventer & Kruger, 2009). Moreover, Hallinger, and Murphy (1985) posit that the task of the school head is to manage, motivate and monitor instructional practices. Read More