1.0INTRODUCTIONSchool leaders matter for school success. Numerous studies spanning the past three decades link high-quality leadership with positive school outcomes. Recognition of the importance of school leadership has led to increased attention to recruiting and preparing school leaders. Many new principal preparation and development programs emphasize the role of principals as instructional leaders. This emphasis on instructional leadership was driven in large part by the effective schools movement of the 1970s and 1980s and has since been renewed because of increasing demands that school leaders be held accountable for student performance (Hallinger 2005). However, while broad agreement exists on the importance of instructional leadership, there are fewer consensuses on what instructional leadership actually is. Some construe instructional leadership as synonymous with classroom observations and direct teaching of students and teachers. Informed by observations and interviews in hundreds of schools, we call for a different view of instructional leadership, one that includes broader personnel practices and resource allocation practices as central to instructional improvement.

Different ideas a different view of instructional leadership emphasizes organizational management for instructional improvement rather than dayto-day teaching and learning. On its face, this reconceptualization may appear to underestimate the importance of classroom instruction. After all, isnt day-to-day teaching and learning at the heart of good classroom instruction? Of course, it is. However, the quality of teaching in a school, in many cases, can be affected only marginally by a principals involvement in the classroom. School leaders can have a tremendous effect on student learning through the teachers they hire, how they assign those teachers to classrooms, how they retain teachers, and how they create opportunities for teachers to improve. Organizational management for instructional improvement means staffing a school with high-quality teachers and providing them the appropriate supports and resources to be successful in the classroom.

2.0CONCEPT AND PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIPThere are many definitions of Instructional Leadership. Two views Southworth turns to two USA reviews for their perspectives on the nature and focus of instructional leadership. Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1999) identify instructional leadership as that which assumes that the critical focus for attention by leaders is the behaviour of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students. They further identify two variants: the narrow, which restricts its focus to teacher behaviours which enhance pupil learning and the broader type which focuses additionally on other organisational variables such as school culture which the leadership believes influences teacher behaviour. Leithwood and his colleagues also note that principals alone cannot fulfil all of a schools needs for instructional leadership.

Whereas Hallinger and Heck (1997) identify the impact of leadership, both in terms of category includes of: i.Defining school mission;ii.Managing the instructional programme;iii.Promoting the school climate and in terms of mode of impact: a.direct;b.mediated; andc.reciprocal.

They conclude that a primary avenue of influence lies in the shaping of the schools direction through vision, mission and goals, and suggest that the broader approach is more effective because it encompasses the indirect as well as the direct impacts, and is also more likely to encourage others to share the responsibilities of instructional leadership (the narrower approach tends conversely to foster the notion of heroic leadership).

One major emphasis in the educational arena in the early 21st century has been the continuing demand for greater accountability to increase student performance. National and state expectations require schools to ensure that all students achieve mastery of curriculum objectives, and local schools focus on implementing those requirements to the best of their ability. As a result, leading instructional efforts in a school has evolved into a primary role for school principals.

In order to meet the challenges associated with national and state expectations, principals must focus on teaching and learning especially in terms of measurable student progress, to a greater degree than heretofore. Consequently, today's principals concentrate on building a vision for their schools, sharing leadership with teachers, and influencing schools to operate as learning communities. Accomplishing these essential school improvement efforts requires gathering and assessing data to determine needs, and monitoring instruction and curriculum to determine if the identified needs are addressed. 2.1Building and Sustaining a School Visiopractice A successful principal must have a clear vision that shows how all components of a school will operate at some point in the future. Having a clear image of their schools helps principals avoid becoming consumed by the administrative requirements of their jobs. In fact, principals may need two types of vision: one vision of their schools and the roles they play in those schools, and another vision of how the change process will proceed.

Clearly, multiple role expectations exist for school leaders. All schools need principals to exercise their roles as instructional leaders who ensure the quality of instruction. Thus, there is a need to spend time in classrooms observing the process of teaching and learning while also balancing other needs such as student safety and parent relationships.

Fulfilling these multiple responsibilities well requires principals to possess an inner compass that consistently points them toward the future interests of the school, never losing sight of their schools' visions, missions, and goals.

Successful principals understand that it is important to establish clear learning goals and garner schoolwide and even community wide commitment to these goals. The development of a clear vision and goals for learning is emphasized by principals of high-achieving schools. They hold high expectations that teachers and students will meet these goals and hold themselves accountable for the success of the school. These principals provide emotional support for teachers and are viewed as possessing the ability to foster positive interpersonal relationships. They protect instructional time by limiting loudspeaker announcements and scheduling building maintenance to minimize disruptions. They ensure that student progress is monitored through the continual aggregation and disaggregation of student performance data that are directly related to the school's mission and goals. Principals of high-achieving schools are confident that they will accomplish their vision and goals despite challenges and setbacks and, thus, serve as role models for staff and students.

2.2Sharing LeadershipGuiding a school staff to reach a common vision requires intensive and sustained collaboration. After all, it is the expertise of teachers upon which any quality educational system is built. Wise principals know that going it alone makes meeting instructional goals virtually impossible. A key responsibility of school leaders is to sustain learning, and this can best be accomplished through leading learning endeavors that are focused on long-term outcomes rather than short-term returns. Additionally, distributing leadership throughout a school and providing for leadership succession are indispensable to a school's success.

2.3Leading a Learning CommunityThe principals must become role models for learning while continually (or at least regularly) seeking tools and ideas that foster school improvement. Simply put, schooling is organized around two key functions: i.Teaching and learning; and ii.Organizing for teaching and learning. Thus, it seems clear that school principals need to manage the structures and processes of their schools around instruction.

2.4Using Data to Make Instructional DecisionsData sources inform and guide action, or at least they should. Without meaningful data it is impossible to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of school initiatives. Effective principals skillfully gather information that determines how well a school organization is meeting goals and use that information to refine strategies designed to meet or extend the goals. Thus, they find themselves in a constant state of analysis, reflection, and refinement. They challenge their staff to reexamine assumptions about their work and how it can be performed. Beyond the ability to successfully gather and analyze school data, principals need to possess basic skills for using these data for setting directions, developing people, and reinventing the organization. The use of appropriate data helps to maintain a consistent focus on improving teaching and learning, and, consequently, effective principals accept no excuses for lack of success to improve student learning.

Many proponents of school improvement stress the importance of data-driven decision making. Today, school districts collect demographic, achievement, instructional, and perceptual data in an effort to improve teaching and learning.

For example, information is gathered to diagnose student learning and to prescribe interventions that will best support students in need (Education Commission of the States, 2002). At the building level it is vital that principals employ data-gathering processes to determine staff and student needs.

The demands that accompany high-stakes testing compel principals to guide their schools to learn from their results and experiences. Doing so will lead to coherence within a school and offer better opportunities to sustain results. Additionally, continuous improvement requires principals to examine data and find means to address inconsistencies with expected results (Fullan, 2005).

Useful and properly mined data can inform staff about the gaps between desired outcomes and the reality of the results. Furthermore, this knowledge should result in changes in practice. Encouraging staff to collect, analyze, and determine appropriate actions based upon the results should be a collective enterprise. When staff members assume an active role in the data analysis process, it promotes solutions and actions for improving results (Zmuda et al., 2004), and facilitating the active involvement of all staff in information gathering and analysis is the prerogative of the principal.

2.5Monitoring Curriculum and InstructionThere are good reasons to focus on school leadership. The importance of the principal's role has never been greater, taking into consideration national accountability standards for schools and the likelihood that principal job vacancies will increase in the near future. Not only do effective principals focus attention on curriculum and teaching, they also understand teaching and possess credibility in the eyes of their staff (Mazzeo, 2003).

Schmoker (2006) suggested that too often school cultures discourage close scrutiny of instruction. He says that effective leaders can raise the level of importance by looking for evidence that curriculum standards are taught through the review of formative assessments, grade books, team lesson logs, and student work.

Principals support instructional activities and programs by modeling expected behaviors, participating in staff development (as noted earlier), and consistently prioritizing instructional concerns on a day-to-day basis. They strive to protect instructional time by removing issues that would detract teachers from their instructional responsibilities. Moreover, principals in effective schools are involved in instruction and work to provide resources that keep teachers focused on student achievement. They are knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction and promote teacher reflection about instruction and its effect on student achievement.

3.0ARTICLES REVIEW Blase and Blases Handbook of Instructional Leadership definite that, how really good principals promote teaching and learning (1998) is summarised separately as part of the resources presented to the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). In his paper, Southworth highlights their finding that instructional leaders value a blend of supervision, staff development and curriculum development. Within their institutions, the promotion of teachers professional development was seen to be the most influential practice. Southworth notes that, as with the other two studies he describes, Blase and Blase favour a broader approach to instructional leadership.

In his research, first, he outlines Blase and Blases analysis of 800 USA teachers accounts of their own principals positive and negative characteristics, and their views of how those characteristics affected their performance as teachers. From this, emerged three aspects of effective instructional leadership: i.Talking with teachers;ii.Promoting teachers professional growth; andiii.Fostering teacher reflection.

These were tied to headteachers behaviour in terms of: i.Being visible;ii.Praising results; andiii.Extending autonomy.

At the heart of all this is the matter of interaction, with good instructional leaders realising that most teachers expand their teaching range only with carefully designed support and assistance (Blase and Blase, 1998). That vital interaction was seen to demand a range of expertise from the principal, from classroom observation and data gathering, to awareness of the teachers stage of development, and reflective communication skills. The Blases note that developing evidence-informed approaches to leadership, management and school improvement requires concomitant developments in leaders skills in handling data, colleagues and teaching and learning. They also note that such leadership needs to be designed as part of the schools organisational structures and processes for the school to become a learning community. Southworths own study drew on the experience of the headteacher, two teachers and one governor in each of 10 relatively small primary schools in England. He found a high level of consensus about six ingredients of school leadership and they are about working hard, determination and resolution to secure the best for the school, and an intolerance for poor teaching.

Both studies (Blase and Blase, and Southworths own) show a high degree of consistency, and both feature prominently the process of professional dialogue. Southworth argues, however, that the empirical base is low, and many more studies of instructional leadership are needed. He concludes with reflections on how instructional leadership is developed, the organisational conditions for instructional leadership and how school leaders should be used to promote learning organisations outside the world of education. One implication of this is that headteacher appointments should be on the basis of confidence that the candidate is committed to continuous, reflective learning in their work is a course of study so they need to be good students. He argues that new heads are likely to benefit more from opportunities to discuss and learn from their own work than from courses with new content. More thought needs to be given to the development of deputy heads, whose opportunities to learn from doing the job of head in their current school may be restricted. Understanding the curriculum, pedagogy, student and adult learning Instructional leadership demands credibility and empathy with teachers. Too often, headteachers have to rely on out-of-date or assumed knowledge of teaching and learning, while the training offered to them has been on other management tasks (budget, human resources, marketing, etc). The demand of our knowledge society is for learning organisations, thus instructional leadership needs high levels of knowledge and understanding of curricula, pedagogy, student and adult learning. This represents a major challenge for NCSL. Organisational conditions Southworth is convinced that learning schools must facilitate teachers pedagogic growth, since the development of their teaching skills and repertoires seem to me to be the major content area. The curriculum of learning schools should be pedagogy. He also finds a correlation between instructional leadership and certain organisational conditions associated with learning communities. The conditions which leaders might benefit from monitoring are identified as a teacher-culture of collaboration, in which formal and informal professional dialogue is the norm, including challenge and debate, enquiry into pupils perspectives on their own learning.

Thus the school becomes a teaching and learning school, with the most hospitable environment for the exercise of instructional leadership because professional cultures characterised by openness, trust and security appear to be the ones where teachers feel confident to become learners. Southworth closes by reflecting that, in a world where more and more enterprises are interested in developing themselves as learning organisations, it is time for school leaders to present themselves as leaders of teachers par excellence.

Another review is on a case study by Daniel O. Poirer in 2009 about A Principals and Teachers Perceptions and Understandings of Instructional Leadership. The main question of this research was about the differences that might exist between a principals and teachers perceptions and understandings of instructional leadership and supervision within a school. The significance of the study was that it helped to provide an explanation of the existing role of instructional leadership and supervision within the context of a school. The knowledge gained through describing the principals and teachers perceptions and understandings of instructional leaders and supervision may allow the principal to develop the role as instructional 4 leaders within the school. The information of the study was collected from one principal and four teachers. The study described, identified, and analyzed a principals and a staffs understandings and perceptions of the role of instructional leadership and supervision. This is a qualitative research where it builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting (Creswell, 1998, p.15). Creswell noted that distinct methodological traditions included biographical life history, 41 phenomenology, grounded theory study, ethnography, and case study. The case study was used as the qualitative method.

The data collected from the principal were analyzed and coded into common patterns, themes, generalizations, and categories. The same process was applied to the teachers responses, with an additional comparison among the teachers responses to identify similarities and differences in perceptions. Finally, the principals responses were compared to the teachers responses to find the commonalities and differences in perceptions as related to the patterns, themes, and research questions. The process was to identify themes that are salient, characteristic features in a case. This process was conducted manually and did not rely on a computer program to find the constructs, patterns and themes.

The finding shows the teachers perceptions in Instructional Leadership. Four teachers were stratified-randomly selected to be part of the study, Mrs. Indigo, Mrs. Orange, Mrs. Violet and Mrs. Red. Three participants had taught for nearly 20 years and one had been teaching for nearly 15 years. According to Tuckman (1994), stratified random sampling allows the researcher to put parameter(s) on selecting the sample and in this case the parameter was grade level. Two participants had taught in the primary grades (pre-K-3) and two in the elementary grades (grades 4-6). All teachers had their Bachelor of Education degrees and two teachers had secretarial diplomas. None of the participants had any experience in administration.

The principals and teachers perceptions of instructional leadership and supervision provided an understanding of the importance of the principals leadership role in the school. The main focus for every participant was on receiving support needed for all school members to be effective, and on the importance of the personal characteristics of the principal. The principals instructional leadership was exhibited by his modeling a love of learning and his focus on improving instruction, so all students could feel success, despite their personal limitations.

Mr. Green felt the principals major function as instructional leader was to establish school culture by working collaboratively and providing support for teachers, so they could teach effectively. The teachers themselves valued the principal who supported teachers personally and professionally, and who exhibited the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to be effective. In addition, teachers believed the principal must be compassionate, empathetic, and passionate about learning. Therefore, the principals leadership provided the framework for the school to function positively. Further, both the principal and teachers emphasized the importance of creating a positive and supportive working environment, which focused on collaboration, collegiality, and professionalism. The principals and teachers perceptions of supervision differed on whether the purpose of supervision was evaluative or for teacher growth. The principal and two teachers did perceive the purpose of supervision was for teacher growth. All teachers mentioned that formal supervision was evaluative. Mr. Green used an informal approach to supervision to reduce the evaluative and threatening aspect of supervision, creating a non-threatening opportunity for teacher growth and teacher recognition.

In another study by Janet C. Quint, Theresa M. Akey, Shelley Rappaport and Cynthia J. Willner (2007) on Instructional Leadership, Teaching Quality, and Student Achievement. It conducted at 49 elementary schools in three districts, or sites include of the Austin, Texas; Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Region 10 within New York City. This is a qualitative research, including interviews with high-level district officials for the study districts, enabled researchers to gain a better understanding of the work. Further, case studies involving daylong visits to eight schools across the three sites helped illuminate the findings from close-ended surveys. The analysis uses multiple regression analysis to ascertain the extent to which outcomes at each step of the theory of action are associated with (that is, are statistically linked to) outcomes at the one or two preceding steps in the theory.

Data from teacher surveys and classroom observations at individual schools were aggregated so that, in all the regression analyses, the school is the unit of analysis.Since the goal of the study is to examine the nature of the relationships between the steps in the theory of action independent of other factors that may influence the outcomes, additional measures that is the principals length of experience, the average experience of the teachers at the school, and indicators for the three school districts in the study which are included in every analysis in order to control for the effects of these factors.

The finding shows that the principals involvement in the professional development environments at their schools include of: i.Greater receipt of instruction-related professional development on the part of principals and a greater value attached to that professional development are both significantly and positively associated with the principals involvement in professional development for their teachers. ii.Greater principal involvement in professional development for teachers is significantly and positively associated with the frequency with which teachers reported receiving professional development.

In conjunction with one another, these findings suggest that delivering instruction related professional development to principals may be an effective first step toward increasing opportunities for professional development offered to teachers at their schools. Principals who reported receiving more instruction-related professional development and valuing it more were more likely to organize formal professional development for their teachers and otherwise to engage with their teachers in instructional improvement efforts. In schools where principals reported greater involvement in these activities, teachers also reported receiving more professional development; while such concurrence is to be hoped for, it is by no means assured.

4.0DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS IN THE ARTICLES REVIEWED ON THE PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLSOne of the impacts of Instuctional Leadership on school is on the culture and support. Both the teachers and the principal identified the importance of personal and professional support that was necessary so that both could do their jobs effectively. An effective principal, the priority as instructional leader must be to establish a positive school culture. A principal affects school culture by having high expectations for all student achievement; despite students limitations, they must all achieve success based on their abilities. It is noted that if students were to be successful, teachers needed a positive school environment, which would allow teachers to function properly. Therefore, a positive culture created an environment conducive to learning, which was promoted by a principal providing support. The teachers also identified support as a crucial component for a principal to be an effective instructional leader, but also for teachers to do their job properly.

The principal and teachers discussed the need for personal and professional support through collaboration, flexibility, open communication, and awareness of all that is happening in the school. The principal noted the value of having teachers feel good about themselves and knowing that they were successful at their job. The teachers emphasized that they played an important role in helping the principal to be an effective instructional leader by supporting their principal through collaboration, cooperation, communication, and professionalism. In terms of the school divisions role in supporting the principal, the teachers did not really know what opportunities the school division provided in this realm. On the other hand, the principal noted that the school division did provide support through professional development for principals and teachers. For teachers, the main focus of professional development was on curriculum.

The impact of instructional leadership on the school, the teachers focus was on the personal and professional qualities of the principal, which permitted the principals to work collaboratively with teachers. The principal emphasized the support needed from division office so a principal could support his teachers. Overall, both perspectives reinforced the development of teachers skills and abilities. However, participants provided different approaches to achieve that goal.

One of the study found that in effective principal-teacher interaction about instruction, processes such as inquiry, reflection, exploration, and experimentation result, the teachers build repertoires of flexible alternatives rather than collecting rigid teaching procedures and methods. The model of effective instructional leadership was derived directly from the data; it consists of the two major themes: talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional growth. According to the data, effective principals valued dialog that encouraged teachers to critically reflect on their learning and professional practice. Principals made suggestions to teachers both during postobservation conferences and informally, in day-to-day interactions. The effect of these behaviors was to enhance teachers' reflective behavior (example using greater variety in teaching, responding to student diversity, planning more carefully, and taking more risks). Teachers reported positive effects on their motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy, sense of security, and feelings of support.

Talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional growth are the two major dimensions of effective instructional leadership, as reported by teachers. Each of the instructional leadership strategies have strong ``enhancing effects'' on teachers, emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally. We also note that principals who are defined as effective instructional leaders by teachers tended to use a wide range of the strategies described in this article. These strategies were used frequently and seemed to enhance one another.

Moreover, principals' leadership reflected a firm belief in teacher choice and discretion, non-threatening and growth-oriented interaction, and sincere and authentic interest. Teachers were not forced to teach in limited ways, nor were they criticized by their instructional leaders. Put differently, our findings suggest that effective instructional leadership should avoid restrictive and intimidating approaches to teachers, as well as approaches that provoke little more than ``dog and pony shows'' based on a narrow definition of teaching; administrative control must give way to the promotion of collegiality among educators. Our findings, which expand the research that demonstrates direct effects on teachers and classroom instruction, and which focus precisely on the principal's work behavior and its effects, suggest that effective instructional leadership is embedded in school culture; it is expected and routinely delivered. Their findings also emphasize that effective instructional leadership integrates collaboration, peer coaching, inquiry, collegial study groups, and reflective discussion.

5.0CONCLUSIONInstructional leadership differs from that of a school administrator or manager in a number of ways. Principals who pride themselves as administrators are too preoccupied in dealing with strictly administrative duties compared to principals who are instructional leaders. The latter role involvessetting clear goals, allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum, monitoring lesson plans, and evaluating teachers.In short, instructionalleadership are those actions that a principal takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning. The instructional leader makes instructional quality the top priority of the school and attempts to bring that vision to realisation. As conclusion, instructional leadership was found to be crucial for optimum teaching and learning, requiring training for all members of the school community. The teacher is the instructional leader in the classroom with the full and knowledgeable support of the Principal in a school which prioritises teaching and learning for all members through mutual sharing and respect.

6.0REFERENCESBalu, Rekha, Eileen L. Horng, and Susanna Loeb, (2010). Strategic Personnel Management: How School Principals Recruit, Retain, Develop and Remove Teachers. School Leadership Research, Working Paper 10-6. Stanford, Calif.: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Blase, J and Blase, J, (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: how really good principals promote teaching and learning, Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press Hallinger.Bteille, Tara, Demetra Kalogrides, and Susanna Loeb, (2009). Effective Schools: Managing the Recruitment, Development, and Retention of High-Quality Teachers. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), Working Paper 37. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Chase, G., & Kane, M. (1983). The principal as instructional leader: How much more time before we act? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Grissom, Jason, and Susanna Loeb, (2009). Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents, Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), Working Paper 35. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Hallinger, Phillip (2005). Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy That Refuses to Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4, no. 3.

Horng, Eileen L., Daniel Klasik, and Susanna Loeb, (2010). Principal Time-Use and School Effectiveness. American Journal of Education 116, no. 4: 492- 523.

Horng, Eileen L., Susanna Loeb, and Dan Mindich, (2010). Teachers Support-Seeking Behaviors and How They Are Influenced by School Leadership. School Leadership Research, Working Paper 10-5. Stanford, Calif.: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.

Ing, Marsha. Using Informal Classroom Observations to Improve Instruction: Describing Variability Across Schools. School Leadership Research, Working Paper 08-1. Stanford, Calif.: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, 2008.

Louis, Karen S., Kenneth Leithwood, Kyla L. Wahlstrom, and Stephen E. Anderson, (2010). Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. Final Report to the Wallace Foundation, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

K, Jantzi, D and Steinback, R, (1999). Changing leadership for changing times, Buckingham, Open University Press.

King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6163. National Association of Elementary School Principals, (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.

P and Heck, R, (1997). Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(4), 135 Leithwood.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2000). Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.

HMEE 5013 EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 1