From Instructional Leadership to Leadership Capabilities: Empirical Findings and Methodological Challenges

Abstract

While there is considerable evidence about the impact of instructional leadership on student outcomes, there is far less known about the leadership capabilities that are required to confidently engage in the practices involved. This article uses the limited available evidence, combined with relevant theoretical analyses, to propose a tentative model of the leadership capabilities required to engage in effective instructional leadership. Research is suggestive of the importance of three interrelated capabilities: (a) using deep leadership content knowledge to (b) solve complex school-based problems, while (c) building relational trust with staff, parents, and students. It is argued that there is considerable interdependence between these three capabilities, and fine-grained specification of each is less important than developing leadership frameworks, standards, and curricula that develop their skilful integration.

Notes

¹The authors define constructivism as “the idea that children actively construct mathematical knowledge … through interaction with the social and physical environment and through the extension and reorganization of their own mental constructs” (Nelson & Sassi, 2005, p. 32).

²Only three principals are included in Table 2, as different leadership practices were studied for the remaining two principals.

³The assessment of trends in student learning gains required data on each student's achievement at entry to a grade level and at exit from that grade, and calculation of the difference between them. Students who shifted schools during a grade level were dropped from the grade-level sample so that gains could be attributed to a particular school. The average gains in test scores for each school at each grade level over a six-year period were plotted and improvement trends calculated. These trends were then adjusted to account for any changes in school contextual factors that might have confounded the judgment of the effectiveness of each school. Finally, further adjustments were made for the input trends so that schools that started in the same place and experienced the same input trends over time were compared with one another (pp. 103–4). This final composite school productivity figure was used to identify the one hundred top improving schools and the one hundred bottom nonimproving schools.

⁴The nine items were: “It's OK in this school to discuss feelings, worries and frustrations with the principal; The principal looks out for the personal welfare of the faculty members; I trust the principal at his or her word; The principal at this school is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly; The principal places the needs of the children ahead of her [sic] personal and political interests; The principal has confidence in the expertise of the teachers; The principal takes a personal interest in the professional development of the teachers; I really respect my principal as an educator; To what extent do you feel respected by your principal?” (Bryk, & Schneider, 2002, Appendix B.1, p. 156).