This study investigates the role that principals play in leading and managing teaching and learning through the alternative approach of ‘distributed leadership’ in order to promote quality education. As a qualitative case study of two ‘township’ Gauteng primary schools, data was collected by means of questionnaires and interview schedules. Perceptions of principals, heads of departments (HODs) and teachers on ‘distributed leadership’ were examined, as well as how the concept was applied in the day-to-day running of the school. It was found that the principals interviewed, despite their extensive teaching and managing experience, were not fully aware of the implications of principalship within the new dispensation, vaguely referring to their roles as leaders and managers without specifying how and what they were leading and managing in their respective schools. Recommendations are that distributed leadership strategies could be found in both schools to optimise the leadership and management of teaching and learning, and that time should be allowed for HODs and principals to implement instructional leadership and management.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructional leadership practices of a statewide sample of Arizona school superintendents. Superintendents' practices in 12 areas were analyzed in relation to the degree of district academic improvement over a three-year period, the relative size of the district, and the gender of the superintendent. Differences in principal-superintendent perceptions were also analyzed to determine the extent of these differences, and their correspondence to the level of academic improvement achieved by districts.Among superintendents that had served in the current district for at least three years, there were significant differences in their reported involvement in 2 of 12 areas. Superintendents in higher-performing districts reported being more involved in planning for instruction and developing principals as instructional leaders.While male and female superintendents reported similar instructional leadership practices, female superintendents reported being more involved in reviewing research and developing instructional policies. Male superintendents reported being more involved in developing principals as instructional leaders.Superintendents in districts of different sizes responded similarly to the survey. The one exception was in the area of supervising instruction, in which superintendents in medium-sized districts reported being less involved.There were significant differences in the views of superintendents' instructional leadership held by principals and superintendents. On the whole, principals perceived superintendents as being less involved in instructional leadership than did superintendents themselves.There were significant differences between the responses of the subjects of this study and Watts' 1992 study. Superintendents in the present study reported being significantly more involved in seven instructional leadership tasks than their 1992 counterparts.The findings from this study may be of use to superintendents as they consider the many responsibilities they face in providing leadership for their districts. These findings may also be of interest to researchers who are concerned with better understanding the instructional leadership role of the school superintendent.

This study compared perceptions of principals and assistant principals to examine the skills and traits necessary for one to be successful as an assistant principal. Research on the role of the assistant principal is limited. Over the last several years there have been major reforms in education such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that constitute a re-examination of all roles in K-12 schools. An online survey was used to gather data from assistant principal and principals in the State of Mississippi.Overall, 9 out of the 10 variables are significant except problem solving in the second MANOVA which reports the results of the comparison of the first year assistant principals and principals. This variable showed no significant difference between assistant principals and principals in regards to problem solving with a significance of .239. In each of these variables assistant principals rated the skills as more important than principals. The results of this study suggest that school districts and state departments of education should consider providing more training for assistant principals and principals about instructional leadership.

The purpose of this study was to determine perceptions of instructional leadership behaviors from Mississippi secondary career and technical education administrators and teachers in order to assist career and technical education administrators in becoming better instructional leaders. This research was conducted for the following purposes: (a) to determine which perceived instructional leadership behavior teachers consider most important, (b) to determine which perceived instructional leadership behavior administrators consider most important, (c) to determine if a difference exists in perceived instructional leadership behaviors between administrators and teachers, (d) to determine if a difference exists in perceived instructional leadership behaviors between career and technical education teachers and school type, and (e) to determine if a difference exists in perceived instructional leadership behaviors between career and technical education teachers and their career pathway. This study followed a descriptive and comparative research design. A version of the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) developed by Hallinger (1984) was sent to 1,507 Mississippi secondary career and technical education administrators and teachers, and 676 survey respondents were used. Results indicate that both career and technical education administrators and teachers perceive framing school goals as the most important instructional leadership job function. Other results show that statistically significant differences exist between career and technical education administrators and teachers in 7 out of 10 instructional leadership job functions. No statistically significant differences were found between career and technical teachers and school type. However, statistically significant differences were found between career and technical teachers and career pathway in 8 out of 10 instructional leadership job functions.

This is a qualitative study designed to investigate how principals and selected staff members perceive the principal as an instructional leader. Specifically, it attempted to ascertain whether there was any divergence between the perceptions of the teachers and the principals. The focal group comprising the sample of thirty-five constituted five principals, five vice-principals and twenty-five classroom teachers. The demographic composition of the sample has been summarized in table 3.1 according to variables relating to gender, teaching experience, qualifications and professional status. The study was guided by the following four research questions: 1. To what extent do principals in selected primary schools engage in tasks that constitute instructional leadership? 2. What is the nature of the tasks relating to instructional leadership in which the principals engage? 3. What are some of the activities mitigating the effectiveness of the principal in executing his/her role as an instructional leader? 4. In what ways does the school benefit from the role of the principal as an instructional leader? The main data collecting instruments involved questionnaires, interviews and observation schedule. A table of alignment illustrated the relationship between the four major research questions and the items in the interview and questionnaires. The results indicated divergence between the view of the principals and those of the teachers relative to the role of the principals as instructional leaders. The findings carry important educational implications for the administration of schools and the delivery of instruction. / Educational Leadership

Bush and Glover (2003) argue that, in order for principals and other leaders to focus on the management of teaching and learning, they need to be instructional leaders. Instructional leadership focuses on teaching and learning in a school, with a major emphasis on the man-agement of teaching and learning as a key activity of the principal. This research is, however, underpinned by Lambert‟s argument (2000), cited in MacNiel and McClanahan (2005:1), that one administrator cannot serve as the instructional leader for an entire school and that the par-ticipation of all other educators is necessary. This sharing and participation is necessitated by the fact that the task of management of teaching and learning is too huge a task for one per-son to accomplish. Furthermore, Elmore, cited in Harris (2004), points out that teaching and learning is a „knowledge-intensive enterprise‟ involving many complex tasks that cannot be performed without distributing the responsibility for leadership amongst others in the school. The inception of the new democratic dispensation in South Africa in 1994 has been associ-ated with a move to a decentralized system of schooling – a site-based education system. Thurlow (2003:27) has argued that inherent in this new model is a move towards institutional autonomy, to a more school - based management system (SBM). SBM involves the devolu-tion of power and responsibilities to principals, the empowerment of educators and increased participation of parents in the decision making process. This new system is vastly different from the „control‟ model of school leadership during the Apartheid era (Chisholm 1999), cited in Moloi (2007:466). Within the SBM system it becomes necessary for the school prin-cipal to share and distribute his/her leadership role in order to cope. Rutherford (2006), cited in Khumalo and Grant (2008:3) points out that the decentralizing of management in schools lends itself to the distribution of leadership throughout a school. Distributive leadership in-volves the view that leadership can be distributed or shared among those not only in formal leadership positions but those members of staff not in leadership positions. The movement towards a decentralized or school based management system falls within the transformation agenda of education in the new South Africa, which is committed to building democracy in schools by emphasizing the sharing or distribution of school management. This study entailed a small scale purposeful case study of two secondary schools in Gauteng, investigating the role of the principal in managing teaching and learning. It examined how vi and to whom principals distributed the management of teaching and learning in schools. Various qualitative research methods and approaches were used to collect relevant informa-tion on the role of the principal in the management of teaching and learning, and on how the management of teaching and learning was distributed in the two schools. Questionnaires and structured interviews were used to collect relevant data from Principals, deputies and HODs. The research findings revealed that the principal‟s role in managing teaching and learning is to create the necessary environment that will enable effective teaching and learning to take place. Principals therefore ensure that educators have all the necessary resources to teach, that educators are in class, that discipline is maintained and that educators are prepared to teach. It can therefore be argued, as Kruger did (2003:209), that the principal‟s role in managing teaching and learning is an indirect and supportive role. The study did, however, show that the task of managing teaching and learning was predomi-nantly that of the HODs. They were involved in monitoring of educators‟ work through learner‟s books, conducting class visits on a regular basis to observe educators teaching, en-suring that educators planned for lessons and had the necessary resources to teach. The study revealed that the leadership distribution in both schools was based either on the hierarchy of the school or distributed among staff as a whole. An important criterion for choosing who would be involved in sharing tasks was the skills and knowledge of the staff. Both schools tended to distribute tasks among those staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to complete tasks successfully.

This study was conducted to identify the self-perceptions of superintendents regarding their instructional leadership practices. The focus of the research was to explore the linkages that exist between these perceptions and factors such as superintendent characteristics and district demographics. In their role as district instructional leaders, superintendents are increasingly held accountable for instruction and the expectation for increased test scores. The data used to explore the research questions were acquired through a survey, the Superintendent's Instructional Leadership Survey (SILS). This instrument was developed by Gwen Boyter and had previously been used to survey superintendent behavior as perceived and self-reported by the superintendents themselves. The questionnaire contained 42 task statements that were intertwined into five task areas relevant to Instruction and Human Resource Development. This study used a Multiple Logistical Regression to explore the relationship between the superintendents' self-perceptions on their instructional leadership role and variables that may significantly influence the superintendents' perceptions. Variables included: school district rating for student performance on the state assessment; percentage of economically disadvantaged and at-risk student groups; and superintendent characteristics, such as age, gender, ethnicity, and years of experience. The SILS was sent as an online survey through Qualtrics.com. Superintendents rated their instructional leadership behaviors on a Likert scale that ranged from "Constant Emphasis" to "No Emphasis." Forty-nine respondents completed a survey, which was 16% of those surveyed. Practical significance was found in the relationship between the superintendents' self-perceptions and two of the variables: (a) the superintendents' age and (b) the district rating. Statistical significance was found on two variables: (a) the percentage of economically disadvantaged students and (b) the percentage of at-risk students. Research findings suggest that it is imperative that superintendents devote specific time to focus on instruction, curriculum, and assessment practices. They must involve stakeholders to collaboratively focus on the instruction goals in order to meet the learning needs of all students. As a result of this study, instructional leadership should be given much consideration in the selection of superintendents. Superintendent preparation programs can use data from the study to better prepare individuals to serve in the capacity of district instructional leaders.

This research focuses on the relationships between principal instructional leadership and the change process of teachers while a district is undergoing the implementation of a performance pay program. The researcher utilized a mixed methods approach. The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (Porter, Murphy, Goldring, & Elliott, 2007) developed by researchers at Vanderbilt University and Penn State was one of the quantitative measures. This instrument is designed to measure instructional leadership from the perspective of teachers and the principal. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) (George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer, 2006), based on the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987), is the quantitative instrument used to determine the stage of change of the participants or potential participants of the new performance pay program.Interviews of school district administrators and a review of relevant documents regarding the performance pay implementation serves as the data for the qualitative component of the study. A grounded theory approach was utilized in gathering and analyzing information. This approach allows for discoveries of themes and concepts that are not preconceived by the researcher.Results of the research indicate increased teacher collaboration and fidelity of implementation of the targeted instructional strategies and practices after a performance pay program funded by a United States Department of Education Teacher Incentive Fund Grant was implemented. The monetary incentive and the incentive of professional development may have had equal value to participants. Principals positively impacted the implementation when they were skilled communicators who advocated for teachers and held them to high standards for student performance and supported their efforts in implementation of new instructional strategies to produce higher levels of student achievement. The performance pay implementation was supported by layers of leadership which established and continues to sustain the project.

This study examines the instructional leadership practices of 5 elementary principals as self -reported in recorded semi-structured interviews. The seven claims of instruction leadership as identified by Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Hopkins, Harris, Leithwood, Gu, Brown, Ahtaridou and Kington (2009) were used to frame the interview protocol which is designed to develop a deeper understanding of each principal's practices as instructional leaders in their schools. The data indicated that these principals were committed to their work and undertook specific leadership practices to accomplish school initiatives. However, two leadership practices, distributing leadership and acting as a visionary leader, were not revealed in the data. These findings may indicate a need to study the impact of the dual role of manager and instructional leader and of divisional culture on the work of school principals. In addition, there is no reference within the model with respect to what constitutes good teaching and learning and therefore it is not useful in determining and/or assessing leadership behaviours related to these areas. As such, Leithwood’s model may benefit from closer examination in order to provide a broad and clearly articulated set of guidelines for assessing instructional leadership practices.

This study examines the instructional leadership practices of 5 elementary principals as self -reported in recorded semi-structured interviews. The seven claims of instruction leadership as identified by Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Hopkins, Harris, Leithwood, Gu, Brown, Ahtaridou and Kington (2009) were used to frame the interview protocol which is designed to develop a deeper understanding of each principal's practices as instructional leaders in their schools. The data indicated that these principals were committed to their work and undertook specific leadership practices to accomplish school initiatives. However, two leadership practices, distributing leadership and acting as a visionary leader, were not revealed in the data. These findings may indicate a need to study the impact of the dual role of manager and instructional leader and of divisional culture on the work of school principals. In addition, there is no reference within the model with respect to what constitutes good teaching and learning and therefore it is not useful in determining and/or assessing leadership behaviours related to these areas. As such, Leithwood’s model may benefit from closer examination in order to provide a broad and clearly articulated set of guidelines for assessing instructional leadership practices.