The Importance of Educational Leadership

?????????????

The emphasis on instructional leadership began with the effective schools movement in the 1970s and continues, with teachers and principals, and possibly assistant principals, held directly accountable for student achievement (Graczewski et al., 2009). As a result of this movement, the principal’s role was redefined into that of an instructional leader. Whether theory and practice merge remained a problem. Graczewski et al. (2009) examined the degree to which the principal’s espousal of site-based instructional leadership in a target school translated into greater professional development of teachers and improved instruction. The researchers specifically studied whether the principal and his or her leadership team fostered a clear vision of professional development and determined whether their questioning about texts and classroom procedures were of a high level.

Findings indicated a strong relationship between the principal’s ability to espouse a coherent vision and the coherence of the professional development at the school, as well as between the level of engagement by teachers in professional development and improvement of their teaching (Graczewski et al., 2009). Outside factors can prevent principals or their leadership teams from expressing a coherent vision. Overall, Graczewski et al. (2009) found that high capacity principals in terms of instructional leadership result in improved teaching and learning. Other scholars traced the evolution of instructional leadership from the effective schools movement of the 1970's, but conceded that while everyone agreed on the importance of instructional leadership, “There is less consensus on what instructional leadership actually is” (Horng & Loeb, 2010, p. 66). In one camp of theorists are those who insist that direct involvement by leadership in classrooms, including observation and direct teaching, is at the core of instructional leadership. Such researchers extol the value of hands-on principals, who are themselves outstanding teachers, mentoring and modeling teaching for their teaching staff.

Others, including Horng and Loeb (2010), called for a broader notion of instructional leaders as involving personnel and allocation practices. They doubted that a principal-teacher could amass enough knowledge to be hands-on in all of the different kinds of classes involved in middle and secondary school. On the contrary, Horng and Loeb argued that organizational management was more important for instructional improvement than were direct teaching and learning. This view meant such principals indirectly influenced instruction by hiring high-quality teachers and funding resources that allowed teachers to perform at optimal levels. This finding was in accord with a Wallace Foundation study suggesting, “School leaders primarily affect student learning by influencing teachers’ motivations and working conditions” (Horng & Loeb, 2010, p. 67). Principal involvement in improving the overall level of teacher knowledge and pedagogy skills had less effect.A study reviewed by Horng and Loeb (2010) included surveys of more than 800 principals, 1,100 assistant principals, and 32,000 teachers and found similar responses—strong organizational managers are best able as principals to improve the overall learning in a school.

By this means, a principal sets the stage of improved teaching and learning without directly involving him or herself in the classroom. A principal’s organizational management skills predicted student achievement growth in most cases. By contrast, the amount of time a principal spent in a classroom in a hands-on way had only a marginal impact on improved student performance. In the study, findings suggested that a principal spending too much direct time in classrooms had a negative impact on outcomes, implying that the principal was in the classroom at the expense of important organizational management duties (Horng & Loeb, 2010). A principal who hires high quality teachers and then funds resources to reward good teachers for high performance is more likely to improve student outcomes than one who is hands-on in classrooms. Horng and Loeb indicated the conceptualization of instructional leadership was passing out of a hands-on phase and returning to what some would call a more rational model of organizational management.

In the 1980's, instructional leadership focused on classroom practices. Regardless of the socioeconomic status of the school, principals were asked to write curricula and supervise their implementation from the ground up. In time, this approach began garnered criticism as too directive and principal-centered by failing to bring teachers or parents into the planning (Ylimaki, 2007). At present, a more shared instructional leadership model is believed to be more appropriate. Transformational leadership has been fused with instructional leadership in the hope that administrators will model instructional leadership behavior carried out by teachers. One framework for instructional leadership advances creating a climate of high expectation and innovation, a shared sense of purpose, a reward structure, a range of intellectually stimulating activities, and improved pedagogical knowledge and skills for all (Ylimaki, 2007). Ylimaki examined the degree to which this model helped improve student outcomes in four inner-city U.S. schools. Two school principals had limited curriculum backgrounds and struggled to implement leadership, while two others had strong curriculum backgrounds and emphasized the power of authentic literacy instruction. The successful principals were more adept in creating leadership teams and shared decision-making structures.

Principals with prior experience in difficult school contexts generally were more successful in instilling leadership in others (Ylimaki, 2007). The use of principals’ personal knowledge of curriculum was superior to the use of pre-packaged curriculum plans. While supporting the notion of shared leadership, the study findings indicated that in successful cases, where instructional leadership improved student outcomes, the principal needed to have strong pedagogical knowledge and capacity building skills. No mention was made in the study of the role of the assistant principal in the projects.The principal has been the primary focus of instructional leadership research. A number of the findings from the principal-based research would appear to apply equally to assistant principals. For example, Gilson (2008) conducted a case study surveying about 150 high school principals in the state of Iowa concerning the day-in, day-out use of their time on the job. Previous research showed that for principals to have a positive impact on student achievement, they should follow the 80/20 rule, meaning that 80% of their time should be spent on matters related to improving teaching and the curriculum and only 20% of their time attending to routine school management issues. Studies have found that elementary school principals are able to spend only 2% of their time on learning, and high school principals were able to spend only 17% of their time on instruction (Gilson, 2008). As a result, serious disparity exists between theory and practice in how principals and administrators spend their time. The study results showed that principals complained they had to spend too much of their time dealing with issues not directly related to student achievement, although they believed the time they could spend on student achievement was useful and productive. Only 15 to 30% of their time was spent on classroom management or curriculum reform issues.

These findings are a cause for concern, according to Gilson (2008). That too much time was spent on disciplinary issues was also problematic. The Iowa Standards for School Leadership distributed leadership time between visionary, instructional, organizational, collaborative, ethical and political leadership. The principals’ allocation of time, spending over 58% of their time on organizational leadership and only 24% of their time on instructional leadership, with 2% of their time given to visionary and 0% to ethical leadership, indicated that none of the principals surveyed were practicing their jobs anywhere near a best practices theoretical model. Most research findings have been similar concerning the assistant principal’s job, with most assistant principals describing the same theory-practice.The instructional leadership model could extend itself to broader administrative and organizational functions and include administrators to act as strategic talent managers (Kimball, 2011). Some researchers believed ensuring that high quality teachers are recruited and hired is more important than attempting to increase the competencies of teachers after they are employed by the school. Kimball acknowledged the instructional leadership model was already undergoing an expansion to include indirect activities such as resource allocation, professional development, curriculum design, and collaborative teaching teams, but argued the new focus should be directed towards hiring the talent necessary to achieve the school’s instructional vision. Teacher hiring could be optimized to avoid future professional development, remediation, or even teacher turnover problems using a process Kimball outlined, and he favored the installation of a broad performance management framework for monitoring teacher progress and quality. Once again, a researcher suggested that instructional leadership as a model needed to be re-embedded in broader administrative frameworks to deliver positive student outcomes.

The precise mechanisms by which principals enact instructional leaders to promote school success have been understudied (Grissom & Loeb, 2011). To identify such skills, Grissom and Loeb surveyed principals, assistant principals, teachers, and parents using a 42-item task inventory. Multiple perspectives were sought to determine how principal behavior impacted the complex school environment. The inventory included five skill sets. The study was rooted in longitudinal research findings that high quality leadership led to positive school outcomes at all levels. This line of research championed instructional leadership, or the principal’s roles in framing the school’s mission and organizing and coordinating its instructional program, to improve learning. Transformational leadership instills vision into stakeholders, improving overall outcomes.Strong instructional leaders are (in this researcher’s view) hands-on in terms of curriculum and instruction issues, and are willingly held accountable for student outcomes. A task-oriented approach to leadership emphasizes specific behaviors that lead to positive outcomes.

Instructional Leadership Tasks

Five task categories were areas of focus: instruction management, internal relations,organization management, administration, and external relations (Grissom & Loeb, 2011). Only organizational management skills were related to the growth of student achievement. In contrast, few links were found between the other task areas and student outcomes. Explaining why instructional management had no relationship with improved student outcomes, Grissom and Loeb explained that a narrow focus on overseeing instruction and observing classroom teaching “at the expense of managing key organizational functions” was not likely to lead to student success (p. 38). Principals’ time spent on hands-on activity in the classroom is at the expense of attending to funding and larger issues that provide teachers with what they need to teach effectively. Grissom and Loeb (2011) concluded that while instructional leadership was worthy, any interference with organizational management would cancel its benefits. Overall, Grissom and Loeb supported a broader notion of instructional leadership by eschewing a false dichotomy between management and instructional leadership, and taking a more holistic view of school leadership.

The finding placed organizational management skills as the most important qualification for becoming principal. Such skills moderate the theoretical emphasis on instructional leadership, opening a door to assistant principals and offering them a perspective from which to view their role in instructional leadership. Cultivating organizational management skills among assistant principals may be one way to improve their overall chances of advancing to the principal’s position.

Quality of Instructional Leadership

The overall quality of instructional leadership as practiced by school leaders has been a contested issue. Harris, Ballenger, and Leonard (2004) assessed a specific example of instructional leadership enacted by principal mentors of in-service teachers aspiring to be principals in curriculum planning, nurturing, and sustaining the instructional program and evaluating the teaching staff. Full-time teachers in the K-12 public schools in Texas (N = 159), who were aspiring principal students, completed the Instructional Leadership Domain survey, which focused on competencies 4 through 7, as noted above. The findings indicated most mentor principals modeled these competencies less than 50% of the time. Older and more experienced principals from suburbia were more likely to model competencies than were younger rural principal mentors. Overall, the results suggested inconsistency remained between theory and practice in terms of principals enacting instructional leadership in schools and training future principals, who are now teachers, to do so. One factor that diminishes the overall impact of principal-centered instructional leadership is that teachers today know much more about pedagogy and learning than formerly (Hoerr, 2008). That is, teachers are more likely to know more about pedagogy than do principals. Principals indirectly influenced instructional leadership by developing a sense of collegiality among teachers in developing the curriculum, observing one another teaching, and teaching one another. Hoerr described how he, as a principal, engaged teachers in collegial discussions to keep them focused on improved teaching and learning, a testimonial attesting to the more indirect nature of instructional leadership in schools today.

The Art of Teaching

Instructional leadership could be improved by incorporating the notion of Connoisseurship of teaching, or seeing teaching as an art, and using a form of art criticism to more accurately assess its quality (Kelehear, 2008). The theory suggests students learn best in the context of an authentic pedagogy, when teachers encourage students to build new knowledge, support disciplined inquiry, and see the value of knowledge beyond the classroom. Teaching becomes an art when a teacher pushes beyond current practice to develop new skills. Such ideas can be utilized as the basis of supervision of teacher quality in the context of instructional leadership (Kelehear, 2008). If schools developed a system of reflection allowing evaluators and teachers to attend to both the craft and art of teaching, teaching could be improved in ways to improve student outcomes. Kelehear (2008) reported on the results of a pilot study of 25 school leaders based on the concepts of the craft and art of teaching. Five participants were from middle schools and the survey inquired about their use of these ideas after training based on the concerns-based adoption model. The results showed that while many of the leaders began to reflect on the quality of teaching and moved beyond discussion of technical skills to the aesthetic dimensions of teaching, many were unfamiliar with the form of analysis and failed to move to a higher level of analysis.

Findings suggested that instructional leadership had not yet developed into an art.The nature of instructional leadership in three Australian schools was the topic of a study by Gurr, Drysdale, and Mulford (2007). The study was based on the Leadership for Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes research, which indicates leadership makes a difference through position-based (principal) and distributive (administrative team and teachers) mechanisms, with both having only indirect connections to improved student outcomes. That is, an overall positive school climate characterized by teamwork is likely to be the primary influence on improved student outcomes. Three case studies of principals were undertaken to determine how exactly, by direct or indirect means, principals’ instructional leadership impacted student outcomes (Gurr et al., 2007). One principal described how she changed the dynamic of teacher meetings, shared leadership with others, worked to create a community between teachers and students, and was directly involved in improving outcomes only by developing a personal way of relating to students. Another principal displayed empathy, built community relationships, and instilled vision as the best strategies to improve student outcomes. A third teacher, who had been an assistant principal, provided more hands-on direct support for teachers in classrooms, but also worked on creating social capital and building a safe environment for students. Specifically, he espoused direct instruction in teaching and worked directly with teachers to train them. He focused on developing teacher capacity by creating a high-expectation, data-driven learning environment.

Gurr et al. (2007) concluded that two or three principals enacted instructional leadership through indirect means, and as a result, the construct of instructional leadership should be viewed within a larger school context. The findings did not address the fact that the one principal who was a former assistant principal chose to enact a more direct approach to instructional leadership, although that principal had “the most articulated and integrated view of teaching and learning” (Gurr et al., 2007, p. 29). The statement possibly suggested that instructional leadership influenced students in different ways. Given the styles of different principals, former assistant principals may choose a more direct teacher-related way of instructional leadership. As noted above, this approach appeared to be losing ground as best practice in the instructional leadership research.

A new kind of educational leadership has shown signs of improving student outcomes still further: data-driven instructional systems (Halverson et al., 2006). The approach was offered in lieu of any definitive claims as to what aspects of educational leadership led to improved student outcomes. Data-driven systems help schools adjust to a new culture where internal accountability is superseded by external accountability, resulting in systemic improvement of education. Using case studies of four schools, one of them a middle school, the study demonstrated how careful data acquisition, data reflection, program alignment and integration, feedback, and test preparation, supervised by principals and staff, improved student outcomes (Halverson et al., 2006). Fifty-two interviews with formal and informal stakeholder leaders took place. The results showed a high level of awareness of the need to collect more data to improve instruction, and most “teachers and administrators in the schools realized that improving learning requires a more sophisticated definition of data” (Halverson et al., 2006, p. 16). Some schools used the data to create faculty-based leadership teams where the principal, assistant principals and teachers, “served an executive function in the schools by setting the agenda for reformed practice and developing and implementing the school improvement plan” (Halverson et al., 2006, p. 28). School administrators, presumably assistant principals, were involved in the creation of problem-solving teams to address the issues of individual students as well. While focused on describing the implementation and effectiveness of data-driven educational leadership, Halverson et al. (2006) strongly suggested the assistant principal at the middle-school level could become an integral part of this changed collaborative-decision-making culture.

Dr. Neifi J. Acosta

Secondary Principal and CEO at Proven Strategies 4 Student Success

“Those of us who responded to the call of teaching and learning are considered to be life changers, when was the last time you changed someone’s life? “?