The national commission reports, which launched the most intensive and sustained effort to improve schools in America's history, confirmed the importance of instructional leadership. Although the role of the principal was initially emphasized, research studies on instructionally effective schools indicate that superintendents use their “bureaucratic” positions in the formal organization to improve instruction. They enact their instructional leadership roles through a broad array of activities including staff selection, principal supervision, establishing clear instructional goals, monitoring instruction, and financial planning for instruction to improve instruction. The concept of instructional leadership has moved beyond a simple description of the principal's role to understanding it as a multi-level, multidimensional, and highly interactive activity that may require a more consultative leadership style.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AplinN., and DareshJ.1984. “The Superintendent as an Educational Leader,”Planning and Changing, 15(4): 209–218.
2.
BacharachS., ed. 1990. Educational Reform: Making Sense of It All.Boston, MA: Ally and Bacon.
3.
BoyerE.1983. High School: Report on Secondary Education in America.New York: Harper & Row.
4.
BridgesE.1982. “Research on the School Administrator: The State of the Art, 1967–1980,”Educational Administrator Quarterly, 18(3): 12–33.
5.
BrookoverW., and LezotteL.1979. Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement.East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
6.
BrownF., and HunterR.1986. “A Model of Instructional Leadership for Schools,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
7.
CallahanR. E.1962. Education and the Cult of Efficiency.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Carnegie Forum of Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession.1986. A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century.New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
9.
Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.1983. Educating America for the 21st Century.Washington, D. C: National Science Foundation.
10.
Committee for Economic Development.1985. Investing in Our Children.New York: Committee for Economic Development.
11.
Committee for Economic Development.1987. Children in Need.New York: Committee for Economic Development.
12.
CrowsonR., and MorrisV.1990. “The Superintendency and School Leadership,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 18, 1990.
13.
CubanL.1976. Urban School Chiefs under Fire.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
CubanL.1984. “Transforming the Frog into a Prince: Effective Schools Research and Practice at the District Level,”Harvard Education Review, 54(2): 129–51.
15.
CubanL.1985. “Effective Schools Research, Policy and Practice at the District Level,” Paper presented at the School District Effectiveness Forum, Connecticut.
16.
CubanL.1989. “The District Superintendent and the Restructuring of Schools,” in Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues That Count, SergiovanniT., and MooreJ., eds., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
DeyoungA.1986. “Excellence in Education: The Opportunity for School Superintendents to Become Ambitious,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 22: 91–113.
18.
DuiganP.1980. “Administrative Behavior of School Superintendents: A Descriptive Study,”Journal of Educational Administration (July): 5–26.
19.
DuttweilerP., and HordS.1987. Dimensions of Effective Leadership.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
20.
Education Commission of the States, Task Force on Education for Economic Growth.1983. Action for Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our Nation's Schools.Washington, D. C: Education Commission of the States.
21.
FeildersJ. F.1978. “Action and Reaction: The Job of the Superintendents,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
22.
GillandT.1935. The Origin and Development of the Powers and Duties of the City-School Superintendent.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
GriffithsD.1966. The School Superintendent.New York: Center for Applied Research in Education.
24.
HannawayJ.1989. Managers Managing: The Workings of an Administrative System.New York: Oxford University Press.
LaneJ., and EppsE., eds. 1992. Restructuring Schools: Problems and Prospects.Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon Publishing Corporation.
27.
LezotteL.1989. “Base School Improvement on What We Knew about Effective Schools,”American School Board Journal, 176(6): 18–20.
28.
LiebermanS., and O'ConnorJ.1972. “Leadership and Organizational Performance: A Study of Large Corporations,”American Sociological Review, 37: 117–130.
29.
LipkowitzD.1983. “Curriculum Development: The Roles of School Boards and Administrators,”NYSSBA Journal, (August): 11–13.
30.
ManasseA.1984. “Principals as Leaders of High Performing Systems,”Educational Leadership, 41(5): 42–46.
31.
McPhersonB. R., CrowsonR. L., and PitnerN. J.1986. Managing Uncertainty.Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
32.
MintzbergH.1973. The Nature of Administrative Work.New York: Harper & Row.
33.
MurphyJ.1990. “The Reform of School Administration: Pressures and Calls for Change,” in The Reform of American Public Education in the 1980's: Perspectives and Cases, MurphyJ., ed., Berkeley: McCutcheon Publishing Corporation.
34.
MurphyJ., and HallingerP.1986. “The Superintendent as Instructional Leader: Findings from Effective School Districts,”The Journal of Educational Administration, 24: 213–236.
35.
MurphyJ., HallingerP., and PetersonK.1985. “Supervising and Evaluating Principals: Lessons from Effective School Districts,”Educational Leadership, 43(2): 78–82.
36.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.1983. A Nation at Risk.Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education.
37.
National Governor's Association.1986. Time for Results: The Governor's 1991 Report on Education.Washington, D. C: National Governor's Association.
38.
ParsonsT.1960. Structure and Process in Modern Societies.Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
39.
PetersonK.1983. “Mechanisms of Administrative Control in Education Organizations: An Exploratory Study” (Contract No. 01776), Washington D. C.: National Institute of Education.
40.
PetersonK.1984. “Mechanisms of Administrative Control Over Managers in Educational Organizations,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4): 573–597.
41.
PfefferJ.1984. “The Ambiguity of Leadership,” in Contemporary Issues in Leadership, RosenbachW. E., and TaylorR. L., eds., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc., 4–17.
42.
PitnerN. J.1978. “Descriptive Study of the Everyday Activities of Suburban School Superintendents,” Ph.D. dissertation: Ohio State University.
43.
PlankD., and GinsbergR.1990. “Catch the Wave: Reform Commissions and School Reform,” in The Educational Reform Movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and Cases, MurphyJ., ed., Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon Publishing Corporation.
44.
RellerT. L.1935. The Development of the City Superintendency of Schools in the United States.Philadelphia: The Author.
45.
RubinL.1984. Curriculum Handbook.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
ThomasA.1988. “Does Leadership Make a Difference to Organizational Performance?”Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3): 388–400.
48.
Twentieth Century Task Force on Federal Educational Policy.1983. Making the Grade.New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
49.
VenezkyR., and WinfieldL.1979. Schools That Succeed Beyond Expectations in Teaching.Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Studies in Education (Technical Report. No. 1).
