The core role of a school principal is to enhance teaching and learning (Bush, 2013). Hence, principals and their SMTs ought to be instructional leaders. Spillane (2005) posits that the principal or any other leader in a similar context for that matter is not expected to single- handedly lead schools to great heights. This assertion suggests that SMTs as are not expected to be exclusive in their endeavours to achieve agreed school outcomes. Instead, their approach of monitoring teaching and learning ought to be shared or distributed leadership that extends to other teachers (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2015) with specific expertise at various levels. For instance, although principals are regarded as instructional leaders but
Page | 35 they are not necessarily subject specialists. Therefore, in order to monitor in-class subject related activities they need the expertise of HODs and other subject specialists. Hence the study is located within instructional and distributed leadership concepts.
Principals are expected to interact with others and share or distribute leadership in the atmosphere of trust (Bhengu & Mkhize, 2013). This expectation is in contrast with the actual practice of principals noted by Bush and Middlewood (2013) presented in Chapter One, that leadership, particularly principals tend to perform tasks alone in their offices spending most of their time attending meetings and performing administrative matters like general policy implementation. Even so, the concept of distributed leadership appears to be relevant in this study and can provide solutions to SMTs of small schools with no deputies.
Distributed leadership can assist principals to share some aspects of leadership to teachers in lower levels (Spillane, 2006). As a result, distributed and instructional leadership concepts form the framework within which the study is located.
The study borrows the concept of distributed leadership as presented by Spillane (2005) who describes it as a concept which is about leadership practice rather than the roles, functions and structures as well as the routines of leaders. Distributed leadership practice is viewed as a product of interactions of leaders, followers (Post level one educators) and their context. The situation in small rural schools, with a small learner enrolment prevents them from qualifying to have deputies (KZN DoE, 2015), thus compelling school principals to be directly involved with monitoring and support of classroom activities. The concept of distributed leadership is seen to be offering SMTs an opportunity to lead instruction with and through others presumably in the atmosphere of trust.
In a study conducted by Bush and Glover (2012) in the UK, some members of school leadership teams (SLT) hailed distributed leadership as a shift towards an increased autonomy and trust. Bush and Glover (2012) note that most successful head teachers prefer to work in distributed leadership spheres across their leadership teams. As a consequence the claim which is related to distributed leadership they make, is that leadership has a greater influence on schools and students when it is widely distributed (Bush & Heystek, 2006).
Situation is a major concept within the distributed leadership framework. The critical issue, according to Spillane (2005), is not that leadership is distributed but how it is distributed. It is not simply the actions of the principal or leaders in other levels. Thus, when studying
Page | 36 leadership practice, one examines the interaction between the leaders, followers, and elements of the situation. Bhengu and Gounder (2014) posit that this theory is relevant to institutions where learning is everybody’s business including the principals and the HODs and not just for those who are in lower levels. Multiple leadership skills obtainable from everyone, the HODs and teachers alike, can be utilised in a distributed fashion, particularly in routines such as monitoring and evaluation.
Bush and Glover (2012) argue that it is necessary for the principal to know good instruction when they see it in order to commend all who are involved. Likewise, they can encourage good instruction where its doses are weak or non-existent and facilitate on-going development for staff (Owen, 2001; Bush & Glover, 2012). Briefly, school principals and the HODs are expected to be conversant with what occurs in classrooms on regular basis so that they can confidently intervene when necessary.
Instructional leadership as defined by Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2015) is the influence relationship that motivates, enables and supports teachers’ efforts to learn about and improve their teaching practices. In support for the view of school managers, the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (2009) posits that school managers should lead teaching and learning through leading by example (modelling), knowing what is occurring in the classroom (monitoring). This assertion suggests that the principals and the HODs are instructional leaders and should be actively involved in teaching and learning monitoring as part of their priority projects (Bush, 2013; Du Plessis, 2013).
Bush (2013) emphasises the significance of the principal as an instructional leader. He argues that school principals can impact on classroom teaching by becoming instructional leaders.
The distributed leadership of the principal ought to be aimed at promoting the purpose of schooling by extending leadership roles to others (Bush, 2013). The conceptualisation of instructional leadership borrowed from Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2015) describes it as an influence relationship that motivates, enables and supports teachers’ efforts to learn about and change their teaching practices. Rigby (2014) observes that it is the longest established concept which links leadership and learning. Its significance emanates from the fact that it focuses on the direction of influence. As presented earlier, instructional leadership influence is targeted at students via teachers. Other terms used to refer to the similar concept include pedagogic leadership and curriculum leadership (Harris, 2008; Bush, 2013).
Page | 37 Lambert (2013), however, argues against the concept of school managers becoming instructional leaders who prevail over the entire school without participation of other teachers. Instead, he prefers to revive the phrase leadership for learning. However, even this phrase has its own challenges. It suggests emphasis on learning as if all forms of learning are exclusive of teaching; an assertion which is challengeable. My contention is that teachers teach so that learning can occur. Rigby (2014) arguing in support of instructional leadership, posit that like other forms of leadership, it is constructed and therefore occurs through an interactive processing which the followers construct others as leaders based on valued forms of human skills, knowledge and expertise. The argument suggesting that instructional leadership implies single-handedly prevailing over all other teachers in the school falls away.
Hence, this study is guided by instructional leadership with the understanding that teaching and learning go together. The phrase commonly used in South Africa is managing teaching and learning (MTL) (Bush, 2013).
This study is therefore located within distributed and instructional leadership due to the appropriateness of these concepts to the contexts of the research. The research focuses on teaching and learning, in particular, the monitoring thereof. Monitoring of the curriculum implementation cannot be conducted by only one person, a principal or HOD. Instead, the interaction of the principal, the HODs and school contexts is considered suitable to be carried out through distributed leadership concept. Therefore, instructional and distributed leadership concepts are appropriate in guiding this study.