Developing Principals as Instructional Leaders

Abstract

Over an 11-year period, Community School District 2 in New York City amassed a strong record of successful improvement in a diverse urban setting. In this article, Ms. Fink and Ms. Resnick discuss how the district develops and sustains a culture of learning among its principals while maintaining a strong sense of accountability for student achievement. THE IDEA that principals should serve as instructional leaders, not just as generic managers, is widely subscribed to among educators. In practice, though, few principals act as genuine instructional leaders. Their days are filled with the activities of management: scheduling, reporting, handling relations with parents and the community, and dealing with the multiple crises and special situations that are inevitable in schools. Most principals spend relatively little time in classrooms and even less time analyzing instruction with teachers. They may arrange time for teachers' meetings and professional development, but they rarely provide intellectual leadership for growth in teaching skill. This situation will not surprise anyone familiar with the structure of districts or with the career opportunities available to educators who wish to expand their responsibilities beyond the classroom. School districts are typically bifurcated organizations. There is usually an administrative organization that runs from the superintendent and deputies to principals (perhaps mediated by area or regional superintendents) and thence to teachers. Separate from this line, except that both report to the superintendent, there is usually a school support or a and professional division of the organization. This is where those in charge of the district's programs of curriculum, assessment, and professional development reside. Also housed here are special programs of various kinds, ranging from government-supported and -mandated programs - such as Title I, bilingual education, and special education - to foundation- supported initiatives and community programs. In large districts, still another branch of the organization is often responsible for operations, including personnel, finance and budgeting, and legal and public information functions. Relations among the branches of the district are often strained. Those in the administrative line are, in theory, accountable for student achievement, but various individuals in the school-support branch may, at least nominally, control curriculum and programming choices. And the operations branch is likely to place limits on hiring and spending. Movements toward site-based management have been designed to put more real control over these matters in the hands of leaders. But the simultaneous growth of mandated parent and community participation in governance and the pressure for teachers' professional autonomy are often perceived by principals as severely limiting the space within which their professional leadership can be exercised. The bifurcated (or trifurcated) structure of districts has meant that educators seeking career opportunities beyond the classroom have to make choices. They can choose an administrative (line) track or a curriculum/instruction/professional development (school support) track, but they cannot choose both. Those who enter the administrative track, typically by becoming assistant principals in the first instance, grow more and more distant from issues of instruction and learning. At the same time, those in the school-support track are apt to become less familiar with the details and demands of day-to-day practice. The people who choose the administrative track are de facto choosing to deemphasize teaching and learning in their careers. Training programs for principals reinforce this emphasis by focusing primary attention on a myriad of administrative competencies and devoting attention to questions of learning, curriculum, and professional development. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 318 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.