----

##  Developing Instructional Leaders. ERIC Digest.                               

Significant educational ideas endure, but they also evolve over                 time. In the 1980s, "instructional leadership" became the dominant              paradigm for school leaders after researchers noticed that effective            schools usually had principals who kept a high focus on curriculum              and instruction. In the first half of the 1990s, attention to                   instructional leadership seemed to waver, displaced by discussions              of school-based management and facilitative leadership. 
But                   recently instruction has surged back to the top of the leadership               agenda, driven by the relentless growth of standards-based                      accountability systems. Explicit standards of learning, coupled with            heavy pressure to provide tangible evidence of success, have                    reaffirmed the importance of instructional                                      leadership. 
Nevertheless, despite general agreement that                      instructional leadership is a critical skill, few principals and                superintendents have had in-depth training for that role, especially            in a standards-based environment. This Digest reviews the demands of            today's instructional leadership and discusses steps that                       universities and school districts can take to help leaders develop              the necessary skills. HOW IS TODAY'S INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP                 DEFINED?Current definitions of instructional leadership are                 richer and more expansive than those of the 1980s. Originally, the              role involved traditional tasks such as setting clear goals,                    allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum,                   monitoring lesson plans, and evaluating teachers. Today, it includes            much deeper involvement in the "core technology" of teaching and                learning, carries more sophisticated views of professional                      development, and emphasizes the use of data to make                             decisions (Deborah King 2002). Attention has shifted from teaching              to learning, and some now prefer the term "learning leader"                     over "instructional leader" (Richard DuFour 2002). 
The National               Association of Elementary School Principals (2001) frames                       instructional leadership in terms of "leading learning communities."            In NAESP's view, instructional leaders have six roles: making                   student and adult learning the priority; setting high expectations              for performance; gearing content and instruction to standards;                  creating a culture of continuous learning for adults; using multiple            sources of data to assess learning; and activating the community's              support for school success. 
These sweeping goals reflect                      a "best-practices" perspective distilled from an analysis of the                current demands being placed on schools. We know much less about                how-or how much-principals actually carry out these functions on a              daily basis (James Spillane and colleagues 2000). The leader's day              is built around dozens of concrete "micro tasks," many of which have            no overt connection with instruction. How do principals weave these             mundane daily activities into a learning-focused agenda? 
Joseph               and Jo Blase (2000) provided a partial answer by asking teachers to             describe the behaviors of principals who had a positive influence on            student learning. Two broad themes emerged: talking with teachers               and promoting professional development. These were expressed in                 specific behaviors such as making suggestions, giving feedback,                 modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting                 collaboration, providing professional development opportunities, and            giving praise for effective teaching. All these actions were carried            out in a way that respected teacher knowledge and autonomy. HOW IS            INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP DISTRIBUTED?Instructional leadership of            the 1980s was principal-centered, often accompanied by images of                heroic leaders single-handedly keeping the school on track. Many                recent policy documents continue to put principals front and center;            for example, Gene Bottoms and Kathy O'Neill (2001) characterize the             principal as the "chief learning officer" who bears "ultimate                   responsibility for success or failure of the enterprise." 
However,            a growing number of researchers say that instructional leadership is            distributed across the school community, with principals,                       superintendents, teachers, and policymakers having complementary                responsibilities (King; Richard Elmore 2000; Spillane and                       colleagues). 
Elmore identifies five key players in reform: (1)                policymakers, whose responsibility is synthesizing diverse political            interests into a viable system; (2) researchers and program                     developers, whose responsibility is identifying and creating                    successful strategies and structures; (3) superintendents and                   central office staff, whose responsibility is framing coherent                  district-wide goals and support systems; (4) principals, whose                  responsibility is designing and implementing a well-focused school              improvement plan; and (5) teachers, whose responsibility is                     translating curriculum into meaningful learning experiences for                 students. Elmore says that each role leads to a different kind of               expertise that leaders must both respect and                                    cultivate. 
Distributed leadership does not imply a simple division            of labor, with participants playing their designated roles in                   isolation from the others. Instead, their efforts are                           interdependent, frequently spanning boundaries (Spillane and                    colleagues). For example, principals can arrange professional                   development opportunities, but teachers must actually apply the new             ideas in the classroom. WHAT DO ADMINISTRATORS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT             INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP?Standards-based accountability                     challenges traditional assumptions about instructional leadership.              Instead of encouraging teachers' efforts, principals now must lead              teachers to produce tangible results on ambitious academic                      standards. This requires not just innovative practices, but a                   different mindset (Elmore; Kate Jamemtz 2002). 
Several                        implications are apparent. First, given the numerous and often                  conflicting demands for reform, leaders must create coherence in                improvement efforts (Jonathan Supovitz and Susan Poglinco 2001).                This is sometimes expressed as "vision," but more prosaically it                just means that all players understand there is a common goal to                which everyone is accountable and that policies, practices, and                 resources are aligned with the goal. Instructional leadership is                the "organizational glue" that keeps things on                                  track (Elmore). 
Second, the distributed nature of leadership                  requires administrators to achieve a finely tuned balance of mandate            and empowerment. On the one hand, they must make it clear that                  change is not optional, and that common goals may require teachers              to give up or defer some individual preferences. On the other hand,             they cannot simply impose the goal. Effective instructional leaders             create a safe environment for teachers, using dialogue rather than              dictates to keep the focus on core instructional issues (Supovitz               and Poglinco). 
Finally, leaders must model learning. Jamentz notes            that principals must be able to recognize whether lessons are                   aligned with standards, develop classroom assessments consistent                with standards, and evaluate student work for evidence that                     standards have been achieved. Their knowledge should be deep enough             to let them coach teachers using explanations, practical examples,              and demonstration lessons. Just as important, leaders must                      demonstrate the same learning traits that they expect in teachers:              openness to new ideas, willingness to be driven by results, and                 persistence in the face of difficulty. HOW DO PREPARATION PROGRAMS            DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS?Success in standards-based reform             clearly requires sophisticated skills, exerting pressure on                     preparation programs to sharpen their focus on instructional                    leadership. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher                   Education (NCATE) has responded with new performance-based standards            based on the assumption that "the purpose of leadership is to                   improve teaching and learning." Administrator preparation programs              must prove that their students can develop a vision, design                     comprehensive professional growth plans, provide effective                      instructional programs, and apply best practices to student                     learning (National Policy Board for Educational Administration                  2002). 
Programs have just begun to implement these standards, and             many are not affiliated with NCATE. Although most programs                      undoubtedly address instructional leadership, there is little                   evidence at this point that students gain in-depth knowledge of the             core technology of teaching and learning. 
Reforms described by Ann            Weaver Hart and Diana Pounder (1999) hold out promise for improving             training for instructional leadership. Cohort programs, in which                students go through the program with the same group of peers, can               provide a meaningful laboratory for developing collaborative skills.            Case studies and problem-based learning offer lifelike simulations              that hone students' thinking about complex instructional issues.                Extended internships can give students experience in making changes             in field settings. 
Finally, Theodore Creighton and Gary                       Jones (2001) point out that few programs currently look beyond                  grade-point average when recruiting students into programs. They                suggest that using behavioral-based criteria such as assessment                 center exercises would provide better insights into candidates'                 ability to handle the demands of instructional leadership. HOW DO             DISTRICTS DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP?Earlier images of                heroic principals may have encouraged many districts to seek                    instructional leadership by hiring exemplary candidates with all the            right traits (Elmore). But heroes are in short supply, and research             suggests that the district's organizational culture can either                  develop or squelch learning-focused leaders. 
Districts can build              instructional leadership by expecting all employees to be both                  teachers and learners. Elaine Fink and Lauren Resnick (1999) have               described how New York City's District Two expects central-office               staff to provide models of learning for principals. Monthly                     conferences invariably focus in depth on instructional issues,                  including examination of test results to cast light on instructional            issues. In addition, principals are expected to attend a number of              special-topic institutes during the year. 
The deputy                          superintendent conducts support groups for new principals, who are              encouraged to air instructional problems they are grappling with,               and similar groups are established for principals of schools with               large numbers of at-risk students. The district also encourages                 principals to visit each other's buildings to observe specific                  practices or simply do informal "buddying" on selected issues. 
A              key strategy is the supervisory "WalkThrough" of each school. It                begins with a meeting to review goals and objectives, analyze test              data (including discussions of individual children), and discuss the            performance of teachers. This is followed by a visit to every                   classroom, involving interaction with students and teachers, and is             concluded with an evaluation meeting. The WalkThroughs are both                 supervisory (underscoring the principal's accountability) and                   supportive (providing the occasion for dialogue and                             coaching). 
Through these activities, the district sends a clear               message: learning is everyone's                                                 responsibility. RESOURCESBlase, Joseph, and Jo                            Blase. "Effective Instructional Leadership: Teachers' Perspectives              on How Principals Promote Teaching and Learning in Schools. Journal             of Educational Administration 38, 2 (2000): 130-41. EJ 606                      422. 
Bottoms, Gene, and Kathy O'Neill. Preparing a New Breed of               School Principals: It's Time for Action. Atlanta: Southern Regional             Education Board, 2001. 32 pages. 
Creighton, Theodore, and Gary                Jones. "Selection or Self-Selection? How Rigorous Are Our Selection             Criteria for Education Administration Preparation Programs?" Paper              presented at the 2001 Conference of the National Council of                     Professors of Educational Administration. Houston, Texas, August                7-11, 2001. 
DuFour, Richard. "The Learning-Centered Principal."               Educational Leadership 59, 8 (May 2002): 12-15. 
Elmore, Richard F.            Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, D.C.:               The Albert Shanker Institute, 2000. 42 pages. 
Fink, Elaine, and               Lauren B. Resnick. Developing Principals as Instructional Leaders.              Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, High Performance            Learning Communities Project, Learning Research and Development                 Center, 1999. 28 pages. http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/ 
Hart, Ann              Weaver, and Diana G. Pounder. "Reinventing Preparation Programs: A              Decade of Activity." In Educational Administration: A Decade of                 Reform, edited by Joseph Murphy and Patrick Forsyth. 115-51.                    Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1999. 301 pages. ED 432                055. 
Jamentz, Kate. Isolation Is the Enemy of Improvement:                    Instructional Leadership To Support Standards-Based Practice. San               Francisco: WestEd, 2002. 138 pages. 
King, Deborah. "The Changing              Shape of Leadership." Educational Leadership 59, 8 (May 2002):                  61-63. 
National Association of Elementary School Principals.                  Leading Learning Communities: Standards for What Principals Should              Know and Be Able To Do. Alexandria, Virginia: Author, 2001. 105                 pages. ED 459 518. 
National Policy Board for Educational                      Administration. Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational                  Leadership. Arlington, Virginia: Author, 2002. 48 pages. 
Spillane,            James P.; Richard Halverson; and John B. Diamond. Toward a Theory of            Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Evanston, Illinois:             Institute for Policy Research, 2000. 53 pages. 
Supovitz, Jonathan             A., and Susan M. Poglinco. Instructional Leadership in a                        Standards-Based Reform. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Consortium for              Policy Research in Education, 2001. 28 pages. 
----- 
A Product of            the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of                    Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon  97403-5207 
This              publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational            Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under                   contract No. ED-99-C0-0011.  The ideas and opinions expressed in                this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of             OERI, ED, or the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain             and may be freely reproduced. The text of this Digest may be viewed             electronically at http://eric.uoregon.edu     EA 031725.                     **Title:** Developing Instructional Leaders. ERIC Digest.                               **Note:** ERIC Digest Number 160.                                                      **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of                Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207. Tel: 800-438-8841 (Toll Free); Fax:              541-346-2334. For full text: http://eric.uoregon.edu.                        **Descriptors:**  Administrator Education, Elementary Secondary Education, Higher                Education,  Instructional Leadership,  Leadership Training,                     Principals,  Professional Development, Program Descriptions,                    Superintendents                                                              **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]