The emergence of instructional leadership is traced back to 1980s in research that studied effective schools (Hallinger, 2003). The work by Leithwood and Montgomery (1982), for instance, identified strong links between the effective school and the principal‘s involvement in the teaching and learning process. Leithwood, Jantzis and Steinbach (1999) state that the studies of instructional leadership work on the premise that principals as instructional leaders are in a better position to influence what is
23
happening in the classrooms. Interestingly, there are research studies in some parts of the world that support this notion. For example, the study which involved 15 schools located in four different districts of the United States of America (US) undertaken by Portin, Knapp, Dateff, Feldman, Russell, Samuelson, Ling Yen et al. (2009) found strong links between the school‘s successes and their principal‘s involvement in the teaching and learning process. This study also found that these principals shared their responsibilities with other senior teachers so that whenever any of the school management team members relinquished their leadership position, there could be a senior teacher who can easily take over. This view is supported by Levin and Fullan (2008) who state there should be a particular attention given to building teacher leadership at the school level.
Although Bush, Glover and Harris (2007) think there is a need for principals to be mentored by their seasoned counterparts, my view is those seasoned principals should also take time to mentor teachers so that they can become better leaders themselves. Portin et al’s. (2009) further interesting finding is that of the emphasis of collaboration among teachers and the principal as an instructional leader. The latter was put as thus: ―principals consistently expressed the desire to see teachers work with, learning from, and supporting none another‖ (Ibid). Mendels (2012) supports this preceding view in that she states effective instructional leaders are those who encourage their teachers to work together for the benefit of their learners. This kind of collaborative culture, it is my view, will enable teachers to share their pedagogic ideas with their colleagues so as to enhance their teaching experience in the classrooms.
24
The other US study that was undertaken by The Wallace Foundation (2012) found that effective instructional leaders are those who constantly look for new ways through which the instruction in the classroom can be enhanced. What is clear from these studies is that to be an effective instructional leader, a principal needs to be on a constant lookout for opportunities that will help them and their teachers to become better with their pedagogy. Mendels (2012) also notes that successful instructional leaders take time out of their busy schedules to visit the classrooms in order to provide constructive feedback to their teachers on what can be improved and what is working.
What we should note, however, here is that this can work best in learning environments where teachers and teacher unions see classroom observations as an opportunity to improve, not to be exposed. Unfortunately, the study by Sibanda, Mutopa and Maphosa (2011) which sought to investigate the Zimbabwean primary school teachers‘ perceptions towards classroom observations revealed that majority of the participants saw classroom observations by principals in a negative light. This, they state, was a result of the principal‘s inability to follow up on the observations made thus making it difficult for teachers to know where they can improve. The other participant in the study revealed that principals were only interested in picking the negatives in their classroom observations. Southworth (2002) says this kind of hostile atmosphere between the supervisor and supervisee hurts what could be a healthy instructional leadership exercise.
Portin et al. (2009) also found in one of their participating schools the strong presence of instructional leadership teams set out by the principals themselves. The function of these teams was to ensure that there is an open line of communication between the
25
senior school management and teachers on matters relating to the instruction. For example, in instances where the principal was absent from school to offer the instructional guidance, the teacher would approach members of the instructional leadership team for guidance. What is important to note here, Portin et al. (2009) caution, is that the role principals played in these instructional leadership teams varied as their level of expertise varied from one area to another.
Instructional leadership, despite its positive reviews, has not escaped any criticism. To illustrate this, Horng and Loeb (2010) contest that instructional leadership alone is no answer to school effectiveness. Their argument is centred on the notion that principals are not the masters of every school subject taught. In place of hands-on leadership on teaching and learning, they propose a kind of leadership that is more organisational and their argument is if school leaders shift their focus from instructional leadership to organisational leadership, there will be an improvement in the classrooms. The other criticism that is outlined is that instructional leadership tends to shift the focus of the principal from his or her administrative responsibilities (Hallinger, 2003). The next section examines the barriers that local instructional leaders encounter on day to day basis and how this impedes on the learner academic performance.