The Relationship between Instructional Leadership Style and School Culture (Izmir Case).

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine instructional leadership and school culture in CLS and to determine whether instructional leadership explains the culture of the school. This is a quantitative investigation and the instruments named "Instructional Leadership Inventory" and "Inventory of School Culture" was used for this study. The inventories were applied to 157 urban elementary schools where teachers worked the six Curriculum Laboratory Schools (CLS) in Izmir. The overall statistical findings indicated that teachers tend to perceive the instructional leadership style of their principals (M.=3.39-3.64) and the culture of their schools (M.=3.63.-4.00) positively. There is no significant difference among groups as teachers' age and length of service. There is a positive and high level relationship between the principals instructional leadership style and school culture. The results indicate that instructional leadership statistically has a significant influence upon all factors of school culture. As a factor of school culture, school leadership was most significantly influenced by instructional leadership. Key Words Instructional Leadership, School Culture, School Leadership. Instructional leadership is unique to the field of education and it differs from other types of leaderships because it is related to students, teachers, curricula and learning-teaching processes (Gumuseli, 1996b). The critical role of "being instructional leader" played by the principals affects teaching and student achievement (Blase & Blase', 1999, 2000, 2004; Deal & Peterson, 1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hart & Bredeson, 1996; Hoy & Hoy, 2003; Gumuseli, 2001; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Ozden 1998; Weber, 1996; Whitaker, 1997). Celik (1999), Hoy and Hoy (2003) and Sisman (2004) argue that the main aim of schools is to teach, which is an aim accompanied by secondary activities and objectives. Gumuseli (1996a) determined that instead of leadership behaviours, the principals take more responsibilities such as the bureaucratic and legal barriers, time limitation, insufficiency of education, visions, determination. As a matter of fact, Gokyer (2004) found that these factors affected instructional leadership behaviours of principals. According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), the duty of a principal is not to create new instructional methods and techniques, but to take a stand against the status quo and support new opinions and applications. In many schools, evidence is mounting that leaders are currently engaging in new practices to help their schools systematically improve student learning (Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, & Thomas, 2007). In this context, the essential role of a leader is to establish and maintain the school culture since it is a powerful symbolic tool for influencing teaching and learning in schools (Cafoðlu, 1995; Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001; Hart & Bredeson, 1996; Harris 2002; Hopkins, 2000; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Masland, 1985; Peterson, 2002; Slater, Goldring, Bolman, Thurston, & Crow, 1994). Accordingly, the heart of the instructional leadership is the ability of leaders to change schools from cultures of internal accountability to institutions that can meet the demands of external accountability (Halverson et al., 2007). Values and traditions play an important role in school culture and they are the elements that strengthen the language, meanings, past heroes and present practices of each school (Handy, 1993). In this context, it is important that the language, metaphor, myth and rituals of the school to be manifested in such a way that ensures all participants (principals, teachers and students) are aware of them (Sergiovanni, 1986). In this cultural context, first, the principal is a role model in their school. The teacher has to notice and interpret the principal's important actions (Fullan, 1992). …