2.2 LEADERSHIP AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2.3 Instructional Leadership
Attempts to define instructional leadership have focused on the function, learners, the teachers the school and practices rather than on qualities of the principal. This is because instructional leadership does not have a wide scope of application than the general leadership. It cannot be applied in commerce, industry and military, for instance. The correct context of instructional leadership is within a school where, according to Stein and Nelson (2003), the teacher, the learner and the content meet.
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006) define an instructional leader as a learner- centred leader. This means the principal, functioning as an instructional leader, is mostly preoccupied with what is taking place in the classroom where the learners
23
interact with the teacher and the content. In his description of an instructional leader, Cuban (1988) posits that it should be someone who is hip-deep in instruction. This means an instructional leader should be immersed in curriculum, instruction and assessment. Being hip deep would mean someone who is totally focused on and very aware of his responsibilities pertaining to the core function of teaching and learning in the classroom.
In their description of instructional leadership, Knapp et al. (2009) focused on the practices of planning, evaluations and coordination. According to the authors, a principal, working as an instructional leader, pays attention to these activities.
However, without proper planning, coordination and evaluation, the focus on the learner will be lost. Robinson et al. (2008) listed five practices through which instructional leaders affect student performance: establishing goals and expectations;
resourcing strategically, planning, coordinating, and evaluating instruction and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development and ensuring an orderly and supportive learning environment.
According to Hallinger and Murphy (1985), instructional leadership is primarily about defining the school mission, managing the school’s instructional programme and promoting a favourable school learning climate. Each of these performance areas has been reduced to actionable practices. For the performance area of defining the school mission, two practices, namely defining the school goals and communicating the school goals, are proposed. The practices require principals to have goals and targets.
These have to be articulated to all who will be required to try for their accomplishment.
In Hallinger and Murphy (1987), attention is focused on developing the school mission and goals, coordinating, monitoring and evaluating curriculum, instruction and assessment, promoting a climate for learning, and creating a supportive work environment, supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress. Weber (1996) proposed a model of instructional leadership composed of four performance areas: defining the school’s mission, managing the curriculum and instruction, evaluating instruction, observing and improving instruction, and assessing the instructional programme, promoting a positive learning climate.
24
Hallinger’s model (2009) improved on the models of Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Murphy (1990), and Weber (1996). In Hallinger’s model of instructional leadership, three dimensions with ten instructional practices were proposed: defining the school mission, managing the instructional programme, and promoting a positive school learning climate. In defining the school mission, the principal functioning as an instructional leader is expected to frame the school goals, as well as communicating the schools’ goals. In other words, the principal has to have a vision of where to take the school and to ensure that there is a buy-in from the other stakeholders. In managing the instructional programme, Hallinger proposes that principals supervise and evaluate instruction, coordinate the curriculum, monitor student progress, protect teaching time, and maintain high visibility. Promoting a positive school climate entails the practices of protecting teaching time, promoting professional development, maintaining visibility, providing incentives to teachers and offering incentives for learning.
Leithwood et al. (2004) identified three sets of activities that instructional leaders have to enact to improve student performance. Instructional leaders must set direction, develop people and redesign the organisation to that which can support the performance of administrators, teachers and students. Shannon and Bylsma (2007) highlighted nine areas of performances that principals have to focus on to turn their schools into high performing schools: clear and shared focus, high standards of expectations for all students, effective school leadership, high levels of collaboration and communication, alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment, frequent monitoring of instruction, focused professional development, supportive learning environment and a high level of family and community involvement. After a study and synthesis of different instructional leadership models, Alig-Mielcarek (2003) developed an instructional leadership construct with three key performance areas: defining and communicating shared goals, monitoring and providing feeding on teaching and learning, and promoting school-wide professional development.
The different models and definitions of instructional leadership agree on the key performance areas of instructional leadership. Similarly, there is also agreement on the practices in which instructional leaders engage. Murphy and Hallinger’s instructional leadership model (1985), Weber’s Instructional leadership model (1996), and Murphy’s (1990) instructional leadership model agree on defining the school
25
mission, managing the curriculum, and promoting a positive school climate. Therefore, principals functioning as instructional leaders, set direction by developing the vision and mission of the school. Instructional leaders craft school-wide goals and exert effort in ensuring that these are widely known by all the stakeholders. In managing teaching and learning, instructional leaders demonstrate greater involvement in curriculum matters. They bring about an alignment in the assessment, goals and curriculum of the school, thus creating a climate of where everybody feels they can achieve to their potential. They show profound knowledge and understanding of subjects taught in the school, conduct class visits and give support to teachers and learners.
Stein and Nelson (2003) put forward a construct of leadership called the leadership content knowledge. According to the authors, an instructional leader must know the subjects and how they are learned by students. This is a further acknowledgement of the assertion by Southworth (2002) that instructional leadership requires a person with high level of knowledge and understanding of curriculum, pedagogy, and the way students learn. Barth (1990) also stated the importance of the principal’s deep knowledge of the curriculum when he said, “the quality of the educational program depends on the principal”.
The PMDP program administered by UKZN in the Bohlabela District also focused on amongst other core areas, curriculum management that indicates that an instructional leader has to have pedagogical content knowledge. This is knowledge about how the subject is taught rather than knowledge about the content of the subject. Instructional leaders recruit teachers based on the needs of the school, protecting teaching time jealously, and allocating subject according to capacity, delegating responsibility and accountability in a fair manner. Principals, centred on learning, provide incentives to teachers and learners, motivating them to achieve beyond their expectation. They identify promising talent, mentor and develop novice teachers, and create opportunities for dialogue on innovative methods of instruction. Instructional leaders recognise and work with the community, benefiting from the social capital provided by the community. They communicate frequently with the parents and the community to create a bridge between the home and the school. According to Murphy et al., instructional leaders strategically identify and procure materials and resources for their schools and cleverly deploy the available limited resources in order to meet the curricular objectives of their schools (2006:20)
26
From the literature reviewed, an inference is made that the principals who function as instructional leaders engage in a wide scope of practices associated with leading teaching and learning. Hill (2002:2) stated that principals are required to have a strong theoretical foundation of current knowledge about teaching and learning, practical knowledge of the beliefs and understanding of the staff in the school and applied knowledge of how to bring about change in those beliefs and understandings.