scholarly journals INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: THE ROLE OF HEADS OF SCHOOLS IN MANAGING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMME

Author(s):  
Aaron Mkanga Manaseh
Author(s):  
Victor X. Wang ◽  
Judith Parker

This article addresses the traditional instructional leadership (characterized with Tyler’s four questions; teachers prescribe a curriculum; learners assume a submissive role of following instructors) in comparison with the andragogical or innovative instructional leadership. As more and more scholars cast their doubt on this particular instructional mode (traditional instructional leadership), especially when compared with the innovative instructional leadership, this article seeks to draw on traditional instructional leadership that revolves around Ralph Tyler’s model. In doing so, instructors and practitioners will see clearly what the traditional instructional leadership may bring to most education settings and above all, they may rely on a ready-made formula when planning curriculums, instruction, program planning, or evaluation. While traditional instructional leadership may have come under much criticism, there is much to learn from it.


Author(s):  
Victor X. Wang

This article addresses the traditional instructional leadership (characterized with Tyler’s four questions; teachers prescribe a curriculum; learners assume a submissive role of following instructors) in comparison with the andragogical or innovative instructional leadership. As more and more scholars cast their doubt on this particular instructional mode (traditional instructional leadership) especially when compared with the innovative instructional leadership, this article seeks to draw on traditional instructional leadership that revolves around Ralph Tyler’s model. In doing so, instructors and practitioners will see clearly what the traditional instructional leadership may bring to most education settings and above all, they may rely on a ready-made formula when planning curriculums, instruction, program planning, or evaluation. While traditional instructional leadership may have come under much criticism lately, there is much to learn from it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-207
Author(s):  
Hirokazu Yokota

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how internationally recognized styles of transactional, instructional, transformational and distributed leadership have emerged in the Japanese education system. Design/methodology/approach National legislation and policy documents in Japan since 1945 were collected by searching for the word “principal” or “head of school.” Then, four types are excluded: those that are unique only to one school type, do not explicitly deal with the role of the principal, are in subordinate laws prescribing contents that essentially overlap with those in superordinate statutes and define procedural roles of the principal. As a result, 17 legal provisions and 35 policy documents remained, each of which was analyzed by using four leadership styles. Findings Despite an increasing focus on instructional, transformational and distributed styles, Japan has not comprehensively articulated attributes and abilities expected of the principal. Additionally, a movement away from instructional leadership in the 2000s contrasts with the recent emphasis on “educational leadership.” Moreover, transformational leadership has centered on the school–family–community collaboration and the expansion of principal autonomy, and distributed leadership has taken the forms of new positions that support the principal, both of which were influenced by the decentralization movement. Research limitations/implications It points to the susceptibility of the role of the principal in Japan and western countries alike to broader structural reforms but with different implications and distinct timing of the advent of leadership styles among them. Additionally, Japan has adopted a modified approach to distributed leadership style, which is somewhat similar to delegation, to make a compromise between the emergent theory and the centrality of the principal in the school hierarchy. Furthermore, instructional leadership seems to be a “late bloomer” in Japan because of its practice-based nature and unsuitability to daily realities of the principal. Originality/value As an arguably unprecedented attempt to apply leadership styles to legislation and policy documents, this study builds a foundation for understanding how school leadership is shaped by education policies. Moreover, while making connections to the western view, it creates a paradigm for future studies of school leadership in Japan and in the field of comparative educational administration.


2019 ◽  
pp. 194277511986825
Author(s):  
Sharon J. Damore ◽  
Barbara Stacy Rieckhoff

This study extends previous work and builds upon the use of a prescribed coaching tool in an effort to build the capacity of school leaders in the role of instructional coaches. By using a reflective interview process and structured protocol, the authors present findings to suggest administrators need more intentional training to strengthen their role as instructional leaders. The results were organized under three themes: (a) instructional leadership growth, (b) teacher growth, and (c) professional conversations. Historically, minimal training that utilizes explicit tools and strategies to strengthen administrator’s roles as instructional leaders has been provided.


2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (sup1) ◽  
pp. S49-S64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj Mestry ◽  
Isavanie Moonsammy-Koopasammy ◽  
Michele Schmidt

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Carlsson

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the expectations of and possible tensions in school leadership regarding the implementation of the 2014 Danish school reform and, by extension, to address emerging perspectives linking school leadership, learning and well-being.Design/methodology/approachAn analysis of central policy documents in the reform as well as research reports examining the role of leadership in the implementation of the reform offers insights into the new expectations of and tensions in school leadership. Drawing on theories of school leadership, the analysis highlights the various forms and aspects of school leadership that are at play in the reform.FindingsThe analysis identifies expectations regarding school leadership, ranging from aspects of strategic leadership that focus on management by objectives and results to aspects that are closer to teaching, such as curriculum and instructional leadership. It furthermore highlights barriers with regard to realizing policy intentions of strengthening instructional leadership, such as encroaching upon pedagogical and curriculum leadership, which have traditionally been the domain of teachers. Meanwhile, the kind of leadership that can be practiced through data-based management by objectives and results seems to have been perceived as a more viable approach in the implementation of the reform.Research limitations/implicationsThe papers' theoretical and empirical foundation is rooted in Danish and Scandinavian perspectives on schooling, and thus the generalizability of the findings may be limited to countries with similar perspectives or “packages of expectations” on linking school leadership, learning and well-being.Originality/valueThe paper provides an original contribution through its engagement with the tensions inherent in the specific “package of expectations” and new demands on school leadership in the 2014 school reform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document