Volume 3 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Research - Page 45

Journal of K-12 Educational Research 43 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN ONE NORTH TEXAS DISTRICT Shawna Miller, Ed.D. Introduction The continuous increase in demands on public education, accountability, and student success has required districts to reconsider the role and practices of campus administrators to better support teachers instructionally (Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010; Wallace Foundation, 2013). Ensuring high quality instruction for all students as an instructional leader is a state expectation and included in the Texas principal evaluation system (Texas Education Agency, 2014). While research and evaluation tools emphasize the significance of campus administrators as instructional leaders, campus leaders often receive little training in effective instructional leadership behaviors (Neuman & Lechat, 2001; Smith & Andrews, 1989). Kibble (2004) suggests that a lack of principals operating as instructional leaders is often the result of inadequate training and a lack of understanding of important instructional leader behaviors. Districts cannot leave to chance that campus leaders are armed with the knowledge and skills of leadership practices that make a profound impact on student outcomes. Districts must be intentional on the design and support of developing campus leaders in effective instructional leadership behaviors to ensure every school building is equipped with a great leader. Literature Review Effective Instructional Leadership The concept of instructional leadership dates back to the 1970s effective schools movement when Ronald Edmonds’ landmark study provided evidence to support what many assumed: effective schools are led by leaders who focus on instruction (Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, 2005). Since then, the research is rich in supporting the notion that the campus leader is an important driver in school improvement. Hallinger and Murphy (2012) concluded that while effective leadership does not guarantee student success, research confirms that sustainable school improvement is rarely found without instructional leadership from campus leaders. A meta-analysis completed by Hallinger and Heck (1998) found that campus leaders indirectly influenced student learning by being involved in processes to define a school mission, manage instructional programming, and promote positive school climate. Leithwood and Riehl (2003) confirmed that the campus leaders’ effects are indirect but impactful when their work focuses on systems that impact classroom instruction. In addition, a meta-analysis conducted by Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) identified 21 key leadership behaviors that contributed to significant increased levels of student learning. A review of these and other empirical studies on instructional leadership shared common leadership behaviors that lead to increased student success. The seven common behaviors of instructional leadership were the following: (a) establish a shared vision, (b) lead a professional learning community, (c) analyze data to make instructional decisions, (d) align curriculum, instruction, and assessment, (e) provide supervision and feedback, (f) monitor progress, and (g) promote a positive school climate (Hall, Childs-Bowen, Cunningham- Morris, Pajardo, & Simeral, 2016; Hallinger & Murphy, 2012; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Waters et al., 2003). Journal of K-12 Educational Research 2019, VOL. 3, ISSUE 1 www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd