Instructional leadership efforts are complicated when leaders and teachers do not share areas of expertise. Leaders work to bridge this divide through a number of approaches, such as collaboration with specialist personnel and the development of leadership content knowledge (LCK). The purpose of this study was to explore the organizational factors that help shape the ways school leaders enact instructional leadership when supervising in areas of (mis)match. Interviews with n = 31 teachers and school leaders indicated that organizational factors influenced the ways in which leaders understood and enacted their roles related to instructional supervision. Evidence also suggested the presence of organizational structures that could be reframed as robust, intentional supports to help school leaders develop LCK.
CarrawayJ. H., & YoungT. (2015). Implementation of a districtwide policy to improve principals’ instructional leadership: Principals’ sensemaking of the skillful observation and coaching laboratory. Educational Policy, 29(1), 230–256. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904814564216
7.
CityE. A., ElmoreR. F., FiarmanS. E., & TeitelL. (2009). Instruction rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
8.
CollopyR. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1086/499727
CoveyS. R., & MerrillR. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon and Schuster.
11.
GallM. D., & AchesonK. A. (2010). Clinical supervision and teacher development. Wiley.
12.
GrissomJ. A., LoebS., & MasterB. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X13510020
HittD. H., & TuckerP. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654315614911
15.
HonigM. I., & RaineyL. R. (2019). Supporting principal supervisors: What really matters?Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2019-0089
16.
KaplanR. E., & KaiserR. B. (2013). Fear your strengths: What you are best at could be your biggest problem. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
17.
LearP. (2018). The principal supervisor: Redefining a critical role to support instructional excellence [Doctoral dissertation]. Texas Christian University. https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/25369
18.
LeithwoodK., PattenS., & JantziD. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X10377347
19.
LochmillerC. R. (2016). Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X15616660
20.
LochmillerC. R., & Acker-HocevarM. (2016). Making sense of principal leadership in content areas: The case of secondary math and science instruction. Leadership and Policy in Schools15(3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1073329
21.
LochmillerC. R., & MancinelliJ. L. (2019). Principals’ instructional leadership under statewide teacher evaluation reform. International Journal of Educational Management33(4), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2017-0151
MayH., & SupovitzJ. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X10383411
24.
MerriamS. B., & TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
25.
MilesM. B., HubermanA. M., & SaldañaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles and actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
NeumerskiC. M., GrissomJ. A., GoldringE., RubinM., CannataM., SchuermannP., & DrakeT. A. (2018). Restructuring instructional leadership: How multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems are redefining the role of the school principal. The Elementary School Journal, 119(2), 270–297. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/professional-standards-educational-leaders
29.
Quebec FuentesS., & JimersonJ. B. (2020). Role enactment and types of feedback: The influence of leadership content knowledge on instructional leadership efforts. Journal of Educational Supervision, 3(2), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.31045/jes.3.2.2
30.
RathT. (2007). Strengthsfinder 2.0. Gallup.
31.
RigbyJ. G., Larbi-CherifA., RosenquistB. A., SharpeC. J., CobbR., & SmithT. (2017). Administrator observation and feedback: Does it lead toward improvement in inquiry-oriented math instruction?Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 475–516. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X16687006
32.
SaldañaJ. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
33.
ScheinE. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
34.
SengeP. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Revised). Currency Doubleday.
35.
ShohoA. R., & BarnettB. G. (2010). The realities of new principals: Challenges, joys, and sorrows. Journal of School Leadership, 20(5), 561–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.611924
