Perceptions of Instructional Leadership

The school principal is the legal authority within the formal school structure and is responsible for providing an environment where competent teachers strive to meet each child’s individual needs for a successful future (Stevens, 2001). Kelly, Thornton & Daugherty (2006) note that principals have the power, authority, and position to impact the climate of the school, but many lack the feedback to improve. If principals are highly skilled, they can develop feelings of trust, open communications, collegiality, and promote effective feedback (p.23). Sergiovanni (2001) believes a principal’s primary responsibility is to provide effective instructional and curricular leadership. However according to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty the concept of instructional leadership is not well defined (2005).

In a recent instructional leadership study by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2007) the term “instructional leadership” is widely used. Researchers have only begun to specify what good instructional leaders actually do. For example Smith and Andrew (1989) identify four roles performed by instructional leaders: resource provider, instructional resource, communicator, and visible presence. Blasé and Blasé (1998) believe instructional leaders use instructional research to make decisions, establish coaching relationships among teachers, facilitate the study of teaching and learning, and use the principles of adult learning when dealing with teachers. Hallinger, Murphy, Weil, Mesa, and Mitman (1983) identify three dimensions of instructional leadership: defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate. With there being various definitions of instructional leadership it is logical to conclude that there is a significant difference between principals’ self perception of instructional leadership and teachers’ perception of the principals’ instructional leadership.

In order for teachers and principals to share a common understanding of instructional leadership, it is necessary to begin by evaluating how leaders perceive themselves and how their employees perceive them. Perception must be recognized as being influenced by the conditioned leadership style that the respondents have and that they use to describe others’ leadership. However, it appears in most instances if a principal subscribes to a transformational or instructional leadership style, he/she is perceived by teachers, students, parents, and the academic community as having a strong instructional philosophy and supporting a school culture where students feel safe and have the ability to grow and teachers feel a lot of job satisfaction (Sergiovanni, 2001).

As principals exercise various forms of leadership, the perception of what they do may vary. How principals perceive themselves and how their teachers perceive them can be similar or totally different. These similarities and/or differences may stem from assumptions or misconceptions about instructional leadership. Studies of schools in the Midwest found that “teachers appear substantially more willing to participate in all areas of decision making if they perceive their relationship with their principal as more open collaborative, facilitative, and supportive” (Smylie, 1992, p. 63). On the other hand, teachers struggling with classroom management issues may perceive their principal as being nonchalant. They may avoid being involved because they perceive the principal as never having offered to help or offer suggestions to assist them with classroom management issues.

The similarities and/or differences of perceptions of principals and teachers will ultimately affect the overall culture of the school. For schools to be effective, there must be effective instructional leadership that creates a responsive school culture (Stolp, 1994). As principals and teachers work together to enhance the culture of the school, there is a strong need for instructional leadership to reflect common goals and objectives also held by those who deliver instruction to students. By having common goals and objectives, principals and teachers have consistency and congruency in their work with students.

References

Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good Principals promote teaching and learning.      Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Weil, M., Mesa, R. P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Identifying the specific practices, behaviors for principals.      NASSP Bulletin, 67 (463), 83 – 91.
Kelly, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2006). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate, Education,      126 (1), 17 – 22.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. (2007). Instructional Leadership Study. Retrieved Feburary 11, 2007      from http://www.mdrc.org/project_3_71.html.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works.  Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for      Education and Learning.
Sergiovanni, J. T. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, W. F., & Andres, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria,  VA: Association      for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Smylie, M.A. & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and  change:  A human and social capital      development perspective. In K.S. Louis and J. Murphy     (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd      ed., pp.421 – 441).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stevens, L. (2001). An administrative handbook: A view from the elementary principal’s desk. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow      Education.
Stolp, S. (1994). Leadership for school culture. ERIC Educational Reports ERIC Digest 91.