# data[].attributes.body
Article dealt with 2 main points
1) Teachers; perspective of principal instructional leadership and impact
2) 2 themes of effected IL (11 strategies)

11 Strageies aims to
i) Promote reflection (p.133)
ii) promote professional growth (p.135)

Findings:
a) After principal-teacher interaction, teachers develop felxible alternatives
b) also see implication for practice (p.138)
c) Principal need to develop professional dialogue and collegiality among educators

# data[].attributes.headline
Principal instructional leadership- Key ideas only

# data[].attributes.subject
Principal instructional leadership- Key ideas only

# data[].attributes.body
in the 1980s, Principal instructional leadership was consistently found to be a key contributing factor when it came to explaining: p331

·        successful change implementation

·        school effectiveness

·        school improvement

·        program improvement

Principal instructional leadership p331

·        focuses on principals’ role to coordinate, control, supervise and develop curriculum and instruction in the school

·        Instructional leadership was a unitary role of the elementary school principal

·        Conceived to be “strong, directive leaders”

·        Hands on principals who work with teachers

·        Goal oriented, focused on improved student academic outcomes

·        Culture builders fostering high expectation and standards for students and teachers

3 dimensions of Principal Instructional leadership construct p332

·        Defining the school’s mission

·        Managing the instructional program

·        Promoting a positive school learning climate

Issues p334

·        Principals play managerial, political, instructional, institutional, HR and symbolic leadership roles in their schools.

·        Instructional leaders must adjust their performance of this role to the needs, opportunities and constrains imposed by the school context.

·        Do principals have the necessary “will and skill” to be so hands on and directive?

·        The nature of principal ship renders instructional leadership impossible

Distinguishing between Instructional leadership and transformational leadership p337

·        Top-down (IL) vs. bottom-up focus on approach to school improvement.

·        First-order (IL) or second-order target for change.

·        Managerial or transactional (IL) vs. transformational relationship to staff.

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Leadership in Practice: What Does it Look Like, and What Influence Does it Have?

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Leadership in Practice: What Does it Look Like, and What Influence Does it Have?

# data[].attributes.body
Instructional Leadership in Practice: What Does it Look Like, and What Influence Does it Have?

Cheryl Graczewski, Joel Knudson & Deborah J. Holtzman (2009)

Key findings and theoretical underpinnings and assumptions: Cheryl

1) How Instructional Leadership came about? (p.73)

- from administrative leader (reinforced by training programs for principals) to instructional leadership (reinforced by emergence of standards-based accountability for student performance).

2) What is the role of the principal in terms of Instructional Leadership?

-  Principals use their knowledge and instruction to impact student performance. (p.73)

-  “an agent of change in the model of instructional leadership” (p.75)

3) What evidence exists that the practices of “instructional leaders” actually influence instruction or other reform practices (e.g. professional development) that lead to improved instruction? (p.73)

- Examine case of a district that focused on instructional leadership and PD as key strategies for improving student performance.

- 3-year study of instructional reforms in San Diego City Schools (SDCS)

High Coherence School (Abbott School) P.80 to 82

Principal:

Exhibited high degree of clarity of overall school goals

Instruction was central to overall school goals

1. Use of  Units of Inquiry (Curriculum Standards) to:

integrate goals & strategies for PD & Instruction

as common language in discussion

used to guide the planning of lesson units and learning goals

2. Support teacher learning & instruction to enable standards to be met

Leadership team meets with grade-level teams regularly (planning & lesson observation)

Principal set his goals and aim, identifies gaps in teaching and have PD help address the gaps

Principal leads some whole staff development and meeting with grade-level teams

Through Focus Grade-Level Meetings: P, VP & peer coaches provided active leadership to guide the work of using Units of Inquiry to prepare materials & unit outcomes

3. Good Communication among leadership members contributed to:

Teachers understanding of vision and goals

4. PD was generally consistent with teachers’ own professional learning goals

Findings (Abbott School):

Fairly high in coherence of fostering a coherent vision

Fairly high in coherence and relevance in PD

Area to work on: Some areas of vision that had less coherence (Math Instruction)

Low Coherence School (Bartlett)

Principal had:

1. Vague on school central goal or mission and instructional goals (spoke in generalities)

2. No strong strong alignment of schools goals & instructions to PD

3. No clear plan of PD

4. Poor communication (even though leadership team was cohesive and supportive of each other)

5. Could state mission but could not articulate ‘why’ or ‘how’ the mission could be made

6. Percieved PD as a mix of time-filler activities

7. No clear plan of PD

8. Poor communication (even though leadership team was cohesive and supportive of each other)

Findings (Bartlett):

Relationship of lack of coherence of fostering a coherent vision and lack of coherence and relevance in PD

Indicators  of Principal Engagement in Instructional Improvement

1. The extent to which the principal visited the classrooms

2. The extent to which principal provided resources and support for professional development

3. The extent to which the principal understood the learning needs of teachers

Engagement & Content-and Curriculum-Focused School

The extent to which a school’s principal was engaged in instructional improvement will impact the extent of engagement of PD focused on content and curriculum.

P who were more engaged in instructional improvement, were more likely to see PD that focused on content and curriculum (e.g.  classroom observations & giving teachers immediate feedback)

P allocated resources to support staff positions & teacher release time to ensure PD remain the central focus (address the teachers’ needs)

High Engagement & Content-and Curriculum-Focused School (Aurora School)

Highlight the difference between principal’s & teachers’ perception

Mitigating Factors that impact Instructional Leadership (p.91-92)

1. Principal Capacity

Content knowledge of principal impacts the ability to be a leader of instruction

Leaders of all levels must know:

1. Subject matter

2. Understand how students learn the material

3. Understand how teachers teach the material

Effectively communicate the message

Competing Demands (p.92 -93)

Competing administrative, operational demands, pressing needs of the school & external meetings

3. Top-Down Conceptions of Instructional Leadership (p.93)

Turn over rate→ lack the capacity to fulfil the role of instructional leaders that left

Need to focus on distributed leadership

Relationships, Expertise, and Sustainability (p.93)

Instructional leadership focused only on student & the classroom but not leaders forging a relationship with teachers will marginalize adults, devalue their prior knowledge and input.

Compliance & morale (address the logistical elements of leadership) versus job satisfaction, morale, and feelings of professional self-efficacy

What are the trade-off of rapid & district-wide implementation (top-down model)? P.95

1. Teachers fear their principals.

2. Teachers do not feel respected as professional

Therefore:

do not take advantage of a principal as an instructional resource

become puppets to desired instructional practices without deep understanding.

Bottom-up Model

1. Teachers ‘buy-in’ the vision.

2. View PD and principal as instructional resources

Therefore:

share their expertise

encouraged & equipped to move forward as a learning community

Become qualified for distributed leadership