Incompletitud de Q

Research over the years has developed many models of instructional leadership. Hallinger and Murphy (1985)’s model of instructional leadership is widely used. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) collected information on the behaviours of school principals in addition to perceptions of school staff and district administrators of those behaviours. A questionnaire on instructional leadership behaviour was used as the main data generation method. Data from questionnaires were further supplemented by information from school documents, observation of principals during clinical assessments, narratives that described engagements with the principals that address the support of curriculum and instruction in the school, as well as faculty meeting minutes and agendas.

From the synthesis of their questionnaire data and organisational information, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) created a framework of instructional leadership theory, with three dimensions and ten job descriptors as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

59

Figure 1. Framework of Instructional Leadership: Adapted from: Hallinger and Murphy (1985).

The first dimension of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model is defining the school mission. This dimension has two descriptors, which are framing school goals and communicating school goals. The framing of school goals can be attained by working with parents and staff to identify the areas of improvement within the school and developing performance goals on these areas (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The function of communicating school goals refers to the ways in which the principal expresses the importance of the school goals to staff, parents, and students. This can be achieved through the use of formal or informal communication (e.g., handbooks, staff meetings, school assemblies, conversations with staff or students, bulletin boards, and teacher and parent conferences).

Supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum and monitoring students are three descriptors that constitute the second dimension, which is managing the instructional programme. According to Hallinger and Murphy (1985), this dimension focuses on the role of the principal in managing the technical core of the school. Supervising and evaluating instruction comprises activities that provide instructional support to teachers, monitoring classroom instruction through informal classroom visits, and aligning classroom practice with school goals (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Coordinating the curriculum refers to those activities of a principal that promote staff collaboration in aligning the curriculum to standards and achievement tests. The instructional management function of monitoring student progress refers to the principal’s use of test results for setting goals, assessing the curriculum, evaluating instruction, and measuring progress toward school goals (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).

60

The third dimension of this model of instructional leadership is developing a school learning climate. This dimension includes several leadership functions: protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives for learning. This dimension is broader in scope and intent. It embodies the direct and indirect activities that are necessary to create a positive learning climate. It conforms to the notion that successful schools create what is referred to as an ‘academic press’, through the development of high standards and expectations and a culture of continuous improvement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Academic press focuses on the extent to which school members, including teachers and students, experience a normative emphasis on academic success and conformity to specific standards of achievement (McDill, Natriello, & Pallas, 1986).

The Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership is one of the most important frameworks, as other scholars who came up with their own models seem to have drawn from it. Though this framework was designed for school principals, literature about the instructional leadership role of both principals and circuit managers suggests that it has had an influence in development of the other relevant models. One such model was developed five years later by Murphy (1990). Contrary to Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model, Murphy’s (1990) model is made up of four dimensions.

The first dimension of Murphy’s (1985) model is about developing mission and goals. Similarly to that of Hallinger and Murphy (1985), this dimension identifies two descriptors, which are framing school goals and communicating school goals. Managing the educational production is the second dimension, with promoting quality instruction, supervising and evaluating instruction, allocating and protecting instructional time as its descriptors. The third dimension is promoting learning climate with establishing positive expectations and standards, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers and students and promoting professional development as its descriptors. Developing a supportive work environment is the fourth dimension. This dimension has five descriptors, which are creating a safe and orderly learning environment, creating opportunities for meaningful student involvement, developing staff collaboration and cohesion, securing outside resources in support of school goals as well as forging a link between the home and the school.

Another instructional leadership model that has been widely used is that of Weber (1996). Weber’s model (1996), like that of Murphy (1990), has five dimensions. The first dimension

61

is defining the school mission; this dimension suggests that the instructional leader must collaboratively develop a common vision and goals for the school with stakeholders. When comparing the first dimension of the three models, it is clear they commonly articulate the importance of the mission and goal setting. However, in Weber’s (1996) model, the mission and goals must be developed in collaboration with other stakeholders. The second dimension of Weber’s (1996) model is managing curriculum and instruction; to fulfil this dimension, the instructional leader must provide instructional resources and support in the use of instructional best practices-modelling and providing support in the use of data. What further distinguishes this model from the other two models is the emphasis on the use of data to drive instruction. This in my view was greatly influenced by the evolution of the roles of both school principals and circuit managers, which suggest that the 21st _{century principals and circuit managers must} have the skills to work with data. These skills must also be transferred to teachers on the ground. The third dimension is promoting a positive learning climate where the instructional leader is expected to promote a positive learning climate by communicating goals, establishing expectations and ensuring an orderly environment. The fourth dimension of Weber’s (1996) model is observing and improving instruction, under which dimension the instructional leader must observe and improve instruction through the use of classroom observation and professional development opportunities. The last dimension is assessing the instructional programme, whereby the instructional leader must contribute to the planning, designing, administering and analysing of assessment that also informs the evaluation of the effectiveness of the curriculum.

These three models of instructional leadership play an important role in the understanding and development of instructional leadership theory. Instructional leadership theory has been prevalent in education literature for more than two decades (Southworth, 2002). Despite the restructuring and accountability reforms that education systems have undergone, the instructional leadership construct has maintained a consistent stronghold in the education leadership literature (Hallinger, 2008). This domination of instructional leadership theory is partly as a result of the focus governments are placing on accountability for learner achievement and the leadership that is needed to improve learner achievement. South Africa has not been spared from either of these reforms and from the emphasis on instructional leadership. Since the dawn of democracy, South Africa has shifted its focus to education, as education was and is seen as a way to help the country alleviate many of the social ills it has inherited from years of colonisation and apartheid policies. To this end, education has been

62

elevated as the apex priority of the South African government. This has also resulted in development of research that focuses on the instructional leadership role of principals (Kruger 2003; Moonsammy-Koopasammy, 2012; Mthombeni, 2004; Zulu, 2004) and of circuit managers (Mthembu, 2014; Ngubane, 2006) in South African contexts. The next section will look at Waters and Marzano’s (2006) model.