The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a survey study of superintendents’ work in the areas of curriculum development and instructional leadership. Four primary instructional leadership roles are identified: 1) instructional visionary, 2) instructional collaborator, 3) instructional supporter, and 4) instructional delegator. Further analyses revealed significant differences among instructional leader types in work role priorities, use of time, and in their descriptions of the expectations others had for them in the areas of curriculum development and instructional leadership.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BjorkL. G.1990. “Effective Schools – Effective Superintendents: The Emerging Instructional Leadership Role.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
2.
BredesonP. V., and FaberR. Z.1994. “What Do Superintendents Mean When They Say They Are Involved in Curriculum and Instruction?” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3.
BrunnerC.1995. “By Power Defined: Women in the Superintendency,”Educational Consideration, 22(2): 21–26.
4.
BrunnerC.1995a. “The Promising Intersection of Power and Ethics: The Superintendency as Transformed by Euro-American Women.” Paper presented at The 1995 Convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.
5.
CarterD. S. G., GlassT. E., and HordS. M.1993. Selecting, Preparing and Developing the School District Superintendent.Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
6.
CrowsonR. L.1987. “The Local School District Superintendency: A Puzzling Administrative Role,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3): 49–69.
7.
CrowsonR. L., and GlassT. E.1991. “The Changing Role of the Local School District Superintendent in the United States.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
8.
CubanL.1984. “Transforming the Frog into a Prince: Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at the District Level,”Harvard Educational Review, 54(2): 129–151.
9.
FaberR. Z.1994. “Superintendents’ Involvement in Curriculum Development: Issues of Influence in Leadership.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
10.
FlodenR. E., PorterA. C., AlfordL. E., FreemanD. J., IrwinS., SchmidtW. H., and SchwilleJ. R.1988. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2): 96–124.
11.
GlassT. E.1992. The 1992 Study of the American School Superintendency.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
12.
HannawayJ., and SproullL. S.1978. “Who's Running the Show?: Coordination and Control in Educational Organizations,”Administrator's Notebook, 27(19): 290–293.
13.
HauglandM.1987. “A Comparative Analysis of the Professional Competencies Needed by Superintendents of Public Schools Perceived to be Most Desirable for Successful Employment by School Board Members and Superintendents in South Dakota.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA.
14.
HenryD. E., and MurphyJ. F.1993. “Ways of Knowing: An Alternative Framework for Reviewing Doctoral-Level Research on the School Superintendency,”Record, Spring/Summer: 74–84.
15.
HordS. M.1990. Images of Superintendents’ Leadership for Learning.Austin, TX: Texas Association of School Administrators.
16.
HordS. M.1993. “Smoke, Mirrors on Reality: Another Instructional Leader.” In Selecting, Preparing and Developing the School District Superintendent, Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
17.
HoyleJ. R., EnglishF. W., and SteffyB.1990. Skills for Successful School Leaders.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
18.
KowalskiT. J.1995. Keepers of the Flame: Contemporary Urban Superintendents.Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
19.
LeCompteM. D., and GoetzJ. P.1982. “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research,”Review of Educational Research, 52(1): 31–60.
20.
MurphyJ.1989. “The Reform of School Administration: Pressures and Calls for Change.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
21.
MurphyJ.1994. “The Changing Role of the Superintendency in Restructuring Districts in Kentucky.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
22.
MurphyJ., and HallingerP.1988. “Characteristics of Instructionally Effective School Districts,”Journal of Educational Research, 81(3): 175–181.
23.
OddenA.1995. Educational Leadership for America's Schools.New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
24.
PetersonK. D., MurphyJ., and HallingerP.1987. “Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Control and Coordination of the Technical Core in Effective School Districts,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(1): 79–85.
25.
PetersonK. D., and FinnC. E.1988. “Principals, Superintendents and the Administrator's Art.” in Leaders for America's Schools, GriffithsD., StoutR., and ForsythP., eds., Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company.
26.
TallericoM., BurstynJ. N., and PooleW.1993. Gender and Politics at Work: Why Women Exit the Superintendency.Fairfax, VA: The National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
27.
WillowerD. J., and FraserH. W.1980. “School Superintendents on Their Work,”Administrator's Notebook, p. 28.
28.
WimpelbergR. K.1988. “Instructional Leadership and Ignorance: Guidelines for the New Studies of District Administrators,”Education and Urban Society, 20(3): 302–310.
