necessary qualities of instructional leaders based on the ... · pdf filechris murray yolanda...

Running head: QUALITIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS

Necessary Qualities of Instructional Leaders Based on the Perceptions of Superintendents,

Administrators, and Teachers of High-Performing High Schools in Tennessee

Jennifer Sallee, Chris Murray, and Yolanda Porter

Lipscomb University

Capstone Dissertation

September 4, 2015

QUALITIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS

ii

Approval Page

This Capstone Project, directed and approved by a Juried Review Committee, has been accepted

by the Doctor of Education Program of Lipscomb University’s College of Education in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Necessary Qualities of Instructional Leaders Based on the Perceptions of Superintendents,

Administrators, and Teachers of High-Performing High Schools in Tennessee

By

Jennifer Sallee

Chris Murray

Yolanda Porter

for the degree of

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)


iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge our immediate families. Without their

love and support, we never would have made it this far. Their sacrifices have been significant,

and we will never forget what they have done for us. We would also like to thank the incredible

support network of our extended family, friends, and coworkers that cheered for us along the

way.

Next we would like to thank Wayne Miller and Barry Olhausen, the executive director

and assistant executive director for the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents

(TOSS). These two gentlemen served as our partners through this process, and without their

guidance, flexibility, communication, and support, none of this would have been possible.

We would also like to thank the faculty and staff of Lipscomb University for their

mentorship and coaching. We would like to especially thank Dr. Keith Nikolaus, Dr. Trace

Hebert, and Dr. Roger Wiemers. These three professors instructed us in multiple courses

throughout the program while also serving as our review committee. All three provided

incredible advice and instruction that we will not soon forget.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to all the members of Ed.D. Cohort A at

Lipscomb University. Many things have happened over the course of our studies, both in and

out of the curriculum. Your kindness and friendship in times of struggle and in times of joy was

truly a blessing. It is truly an honor to have you all as colleagues, classmates, and friends.


iv

Abstract

Studies have found that school level leaders have a significant impact on student achievement

through their work as instructional leaders, but defining instructional leadership is often

challenging, especially at the high-school level. The researchers, at the request of the Tennessee

Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS), sought to determine a definition of instructional

leadership and discover the necessary traits and behaviors of successful instructional leaders that

transcend school socioeconomic and geographic contexts. The purpose of this study was to aid

superintendents in identifying administrator candidates who will have a significant positive

impact on student achievement. This study examined the perceptions of teachers, administrators,

and superintendents from high-performing Tennessee high schools as measured by value-added

growth data. Through this study, the researchers determined the following definition of

instructional leadership:

Instructional leadership is focusing on the growth and development of teachers through

non-evaluative coaching and mentoring, while also providing resources; professional

development; financial, personal, and instructional support; and acquiring, analyzing, and

using data for the purposes of improving instruction.

The researchers also ascertained that the traits of effective instructional leaders as perceived by

teachers, administrators, and superintendents all trended into four categories: traits implying

efficiency of execution, traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior, traits

implying a personal level of care and concern for faculty, and traits implying a level of

commitment to the work. For behaviors, the data trended into three categories: intellectual,

material, and emotional, with the intellectual behavior coaching and providing strategies

occurring most frequently.


v

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

History of the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents ............................................ 2

Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Research .............................................................................................................. 4

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................ 4

Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 11

Scope and Bounds ..................................................................................................................... 11

Significance ............................................................................................................................... 12

Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 12

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 15

Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 16

Leadership Theories and Styles ................................................................................................. 16

Common Qualities of Different Leadership Styles ................................................................... 18

Leadership in the Educational Setting ....................................................................................... 22

Defining Instructional Leadership ............................................................................................. 26

Link between Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement ........................................... 29

Elements of Instructional Leadership at the Secondary Level .................................................. 35

The Administrator Recruitment and Selection Process ............................................................. 42

Methods of Identifying High-Performing Schools .................................................................... 49


Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................. 51

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 53

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 53

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 54

Population and Participants ....................................................................................................... 54

Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................... 59

Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................... 61

Pilot Testing ............................................................................................................................... 61

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 65

Disposition of the Data .............................................................................................................. 67

Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 68

Definition of Instructional Leadership (Research Question 1) .................................................. 68

Traits Exhibited by Effective Instructional Leaders (Research Question 2) ............................. 78

Behaviors Exhibited by Effective Instructional Leaders (Research Question 2) ...................... 82

Other Findings ......................................................................................................................... 102

Discussions and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 113

Summary .................................................................................................................................. 113

Interpretations of the Findings ................................................................................................. 114

Relationship to Previous Research .......................................................................................... 133


Discussion and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 140

Recommendations For Practice ............................................................................................... 145

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 148

Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................................. 149

Reflections ............................................................................................................................... 150

References ................................................................................................................................... 152

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 158

QUALITIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS 1

Introduction

Today, school achievement stands as a major topic of concern in the United States.

Ravitch (2013) articulated that due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, as well as

numerous other reform movements such as the Race to the Top, the charter school movement,

and Common Core Standards Initiative, a significant emphasis has been placed on the

achievement success of schools. Much of that emphasis is focused on the underperformance of

public schools across the United States. Teachers have largely been the target of these reforms

with more rigorous evaluation processes, different teaching strategy initiatives, and increased

academic standards. Much of this national attention is due to the relatively low ranking of

United States students on international exams when compared to other developed countries (pp.

8-18).

Teachers clearly have the number one impact on student achievement in the school

building, but according to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) school leadership has a

substantial effect on student achievement as well (p. 10). Bush (2011) asserted that principals as

instructional leaders have the ability to motivate and develop teachers, who can then increase

student achievement. Also, a positive school environment is a key component to achievement,

and the principal’s leadership style and management style reflect on the total environment (p. 16-

18). Another factor that contributes to a successful school is low teacher turnover. If quality

school leadership exists, teachers will be less likely to leave, thus creating a consistency that

allows teachers and students to be more successful.

School leadership is important to all schools, and according to conversations with Wayne

Miller, the executive director of Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS),

qualified principal applicants can be scarce. Even rarer are principal applicants who have the


skills to be an instructional leader (W. Miller, personal communication, July 10, 2014). Bush

(2011) established an instructional leader as a principal who is concerned with teacher behaviors

and focuses on developing the instructional talents of those teachers for the benefit of student

achievement. The need for instructional leaders in Tennessee is primarily at the high school

level due to the diversity and complexity of the curriculum at that level (W. Miller, personal

communication, July 10, 2014). In order to help fill this void, TOSS is interested in discovering

the necessary qualities for a successful instructional leader. This will help their members,

Tennessee superintendents, to make informed hiring decisions.

History of the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents

According to their website, Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS),

founded in 1975, is the leading advocacy group for public education in the state of Tennessee.

The organization focuses strongly on the interests of superintendents, but also maintains

advocacy for public education as a whole (Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents,

2013, para. 1). This mission is exemplified by the vision of being a catalyst that empowers

superintendents to promote and improve public education so that all Tennessee students are

prepared for a successful future. Through this guiding vision, the Tennessee Organization of

School Superintendents (2012) has a seven-point articulated purpose:

1. The advancement of public education.

2. The promotion of the work and interest of the superintendency, but not for private gain or

personal economic interest.

3. The gathering and circulation of information on general school matters.

4. The provision of pertinent information on sound education legislation to the General

Assembly of Tennessee.


5. The cooperation with the State Department of Education and other agencies and

organizations interested in public education.

6. To propose legislation, to establish and communicate a position on pending legislation,

and to study its impact on local school systems.

7. To engage in other activities and programs deemed necessary for the welfare of children

and the youth in the State of Tennessee. (p. 1)

In their efforts to fulfill their vision and purpose, TOSS engages in advocacy at the state

level for education issues that are high priorities for Tennessee schools. Also, in order to

promote quality leadership throughout the state, TOSS operates a leadership institute that

provides professional development targeted at the needs of active superintendents whether they

are new to the position or seasoned veterans seeking to improve (Tennessee Organization of

School Superintendents, 2013, para. 3).

Problem Statement

As public schools undergo increasing scrutiny, instructional leadership has become very

desirable throughout school districts nationwide. Teachers are at the forefront in regard to

affecting student achievement; however, data show that school administrators have an effect as

well. Previously, the role of a school administrator was largely associated with building

operations and personnel management, but now that role has changed due to the perceived

failures of the public education system. Now, a desired school administrator is one who can

improve the teaching quality, and thus, the student achievement within his or her building.

The goal of an instructional leader is to improve the teaching quality throughout his or

her school. However, it is difficult to define instructional leadership in terms of what this

improvement actually looks like for practicing school-level administrators who want to be


instructional leaders. This difficulty stems from the many different research studies and

publications on instructional leadership in which instructional leadership and its accompanying

qualities are defined in many different ways. These differences make it challenging to identify

effective instructional leaders because there is no consensus on what instructional leadership

really is. In order to establish which qualities are necessary for an effective instructional leader

in the state of Tennessee, the term needs to be more clearly defined.

Purpose of the Research

In order to address the need for a clear definition of instructional leadership and the

resulting practical implications for school-level administrators, TOSS has asked a group of

researchers from the Lipscomb University Doctorate of Education program to design a

qualitative research study geared toward understanding the qualities of an effective instructional

leader at the high school level in Tennessee.

The purpose of this study is to determine a definition for an effective instructional leader

as perceived by Tennessee superintendents, school leaders, and teachers. Another reason for this

study is to identify the leadership qualities that are perceived to have the greatest impact on

student growth.

Conceptual Framework

In the attempt to discover the common qualities of effective instructional leaders, the

researchers compiled a conceptual framework as a basis for their study. This framework aided

the researchers in developing their instruments, while also providing initial categories and

themes for data analysis.

The conceptual framework is made up of three significant methods of defining

instructional leadership and one leadership theory. The researchers chose these three methods of


defining instructional leadership because of their international, national, and local significance,

respectively. These three definitions are used as standards by which to judge the extent to which

school-level administrators can be considered instructional leaders. School-level administrators

are certified and evaluated based on these standards, so it is reasonable to expect that their

behaviors will be aligned with these standards. The researchers will analyze the extent to which

the actual skills and behaviors of school-level administrators align with these three definitions of

instructional leadership.

Because these three definitions primarily focus on skills and behaviors of instructional

leaders, the researchers also explored trait theory in order to examine the role that traits play in

regard to the effectiveness of school-level administrators who strive to be considered

instructional leaders. Trait theory may serve as a way of reconciling why school-level

administrators with similar backgrounds and goals may approach instructional leadership in

different ways.

Twenty-one responsibilities of the school leader. Marzano et al. (2005) defined 21

responsibilities of an effective school leader. The researchers will use these 21 responsibilities

as a framework for discovering the necessary qualities attributed to effective instructional

leadership. The following is a list of those 21 responsibilities.

1. Affirmation – The school leader has the responsibility to praise and celebrate

accomplishments, but must address negative behaviors (p. 41-44).

2. Change Agent – It is the responsibility of the school leader to challenge practices that are

in place and move towards improvement (p. 44-45).

3. Contingent Rewards – This responsibility is reflective of Transactional Leadership, or the

swapping of rewards for performance (p. 45-46).


4. Communication – Clear and frequent communication is essential to effective leadership

because it is involved in almost all of the 21 responsibilities of a school leader (p. 46-47).

5. Culture – Culture is the shared values, beliefs, and feelings of the members of the

organization. Positive culture breeds positive results (p. 47-48).

6. Discipline – Instructional time is paramount to effective teaching. The principal has the

responsibility to decrease the amount of distractions caused by student behavior issues (p.

48-49).

7. Flexibility – Leaders need to be able to assess situations and adapt their behaviors to

address potential problems (p. 49-50).

8. Focus – The leader needs to communicate and reinforce the goals and vision of the

organization (p. 50-51)

9. Ideals/Beliefs – A leader needs to articulate his/her beliefs concerning education and

align them with the mission/vision. If the leader is not passionate about his/her beliefs,

then teachers and students will not follow (p. 51).

10. Input – It is important to have shared leadership. If teachers have input then it builds a

shared sense of purpose and consensus (p. 51-52).

11. Intellectual Stimulation – Education is a constantly evolving field, and the school leader

needs to provide effective professional development to continue improving his/her

teachers (p. 52-53).

12. Involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment – Knowledge of subject matter

and pedagogy should be just as important for administrators as it is for teachers (pp. 53-

54).


13. Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment – Having knowledge of

curriculum, instruction, and assessment allows the leader to provide specific, research-

based strategies to teachers for improved instruction (pp. 54-55).

14. Monitoring/Evaluating – Monitoring and evaluating provides feedback to teachers to

improve instruction and student achievement (pp. 55-56).

15. Optimizer – A school leader needs to be positive and inspirational when implementing

changes, otherwise the change will be ineffective (pp. 56-57).

16. Order – School leaders need to establish standing operating principles and routines. This

eliminates confusion and allows the focus to be on instruction (pp. 57-58).

17. Outreach – A school leader needs to be an advocate for his or her school in the district

and in the community (p. 58).

18. Relationships – Relationships are key to success. Teachers need to know that their

administrator cares about them in order to build trust, commitment, and loyalty (pp. 58-

59).

19. Resources – A school without appropriate material and personnel resources cannot

function at full capacity. School leaders need to be aware of needed resources and seek

out those resources (pp. 59-60).

20. Situational Awareness – School leaders need to be aware of the thoughts, feelings, and

events associated with their school. This will allow the principal to anticipate potential

problems (pp. 60-61).

21. Visibility – Principals should be visiting classrooms and be present for teachers and

students to see and talk to. This shows the leader’s school commitment to everyone on a

regular basis (p. 61).


Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium. In 2008, The Council of Chief

State School Officers relied on national collaboration to develop national standards for school

leaders. Previously, this organization wrote standards in 1996, known as the Interstate School

Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leadership. According to the

ISLLC Educational Leadership Standards: 2008, the previous standards were too narrow and did

not fit the changing role of school leaders in the current state of the U.S. education system. The

2008 standards reflect the changing role of school administrators, but also reflect recent research

regarding educational leadership (pp. 1-2). The ISLLC: 2008 standards are the following:

1. An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the

development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning

that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.

2. An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing,

and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student

learning and staff professional growth.

3. An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management

of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective

learning environment.

4. An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with

faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and

needs, and mobilizing community resources.

5. An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity,

fairness, and in an ethical manner.


6. An education leader promotes the success of every student by understanding,

responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural

context (pp. 14-15).

Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards. As stated by the Tennessee State

Board of Education (2013), Tennessee developed performance indicators for effective

instructional leaders based upon current research and agreed upon best practices. The goal of the

Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards (TILS) is to create a network of instructional

leaders throughout Tennessee that maximize results (p. 1). The following are quoted from the

TILS standards:

1. Instructional Leadership for Continuous Improvement – An ethical and effective

instructional leader facilitates professional practice that continually improves student

learning.

2. Culture for Teaching and Learning – An ethical and effective instructional leader

collaborates with stakeholders to create and sustain an inclusive, respectful and safe

environment conducive to learning and growth for all.

3. Professional Learning and Growth – An ethical and effective instructional leader

develops capacity of all educators by designing, facilitating, and participating in

collaborative learning informed by multiple sources of data.

4. Resource Management – An ethical and effective instructional leader facilitates the

development of a highly effective learning community through processes that enlist

diverse stakeholders and resources (pp. 1-2).

Trait theory. Northhouse (2013) defined the trait model of leadership as the

characteristics of leaders, which is then used to predict leadership effectiveness in people. The


resulting lists of traits are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of

success or failure (pp. 19-20).

Successful leaders appear to have common interests, abilities, and personality traits.

Through many studies conducted throughout the 20th century, essential traits of successful

leaders were identified. These traits are not responsible for determining whether a person will be

a successful leader, but they are preconditions that attempt to predict leadership potential. Those

major leadership traits are intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability

(pp. 22-23).

Trait leadership is different than other leadership theories because it focuses specifically

on the leader and does not consider the follower or the situation. The trait approach is simply

concerned with the traits leaders exhibit and who possesses those traits. The approach is very

straightforward and suggests that an organization will function better if the leader has a specific

leadership profile. Based on this approach, an organization simply needs to define the desired

traits for a leader and provide a personality assessment for potential applicants (pp. 28-29).

Summary of conceptual framework. The components of the conceptual framework

presented above played a significant role in the design of this research. The instruments

(Appendices B-D) used as the primary method of data collection were designed to elicit

responses concerning the traits and behaviors of school-level leaders presented in the

aforementioned frameworks. These frameworks also aided the researchers in their data analysis

by serving as the basis for the initial categories and themes in the coding process. The

frameworks provided a foundation on which the researchers were able to build their

understanding of the expectations for the school-level leader and against which they compared

the data collected throughout the research process.


Research Questions

The researchers created two research questions to guide their work as they collected data

to fulfill their purpose. The primary interest was discovering the necessary qualities of an

effective instructional leader, but they also addressed the inadequate definition of instructional

leadership. To that end they attempted to answer the following questions:

1. How do superintendents, administrators, and teachers define instructional leadership?

2. What are the qualities that effective instructional leaders possess?

By aligning their collection of data with these questions they hoped to shed new light on

not only the qualities of effective instructional leaders, but also on a practical definition of


Scope and Bounds

This research focused, in particular, on instructional leadership within high-performing

Tennessee high schools. The researchers hoped to discover leadership qualities that encouraged

the instructional growth of teachers within those schools. In order to arrive at this determination,

the researchers surveyed and interviewed teachers, administrators, and superintendents

associated with those effective schools.

The method for selecting the sample of high-performing high schools was based on a

combination of school-level student growth, geographic location, and socioeconomic status in

order to gather data that represented the different contexts in which schools operate throughout

the state of Tennessee. These data were obtained through the Tennessee Report Card database

for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. The researchers limited data collection to school

employees who were employed during the two school years from which the growth data were

collected. Data were collected from participants in the sample of high-performing high schools


over the course of three months during the spring semester of the 2014-2015 school year. The

researchers chose this method of selection based on the assumption that a high-performing

school has an effective instructional leader.

Significance

This study will be beneficial to all Tennessee stakeholders. Superintendents will benefit

because it will provide them with recommendations in regard to the hiring process. Principals

will benefit because it will help outline the meaning of an effective principal and provide a

structure for how to become a better instructional leader. Teachers will benefit because it will

outline what to expect from an instructional leader and give them the framework of how to

become an instructional leader. Colleges and universities will also benefit because the study will

provide a framework for how to prepare effective school leaders for Tennessee education.

Additionally, this study will provide a baseline for any other study on instructional leadership

within the state of Tennessee.

Definitions

In order to provide clarity of understanding, the researchers have provided the following

definitions of terms and concepts used throughout this study. To ensure consistency and

objectivity, the researchers formulated these definitions before selecting participant schools and

collecting data.

• An assistant principal, as defined by the National Association of Secondary

School Principals, carries considerable authority with the teachers and students of

the school, but is directed by the executive principal (para. 1). Frequently, an

assistant principal is responsible for managerial tasks such as “scheduling, crisis

drills, bus and lunchroom supervision, and student discipline” (para. 2). Although


this is the typical role, TOSS believes that assistant principals can also occupy the

role of instructional leader (W. Miller, personal communication, July 10, 2014).

• Effectiveness pertains to “educators’ capacity to meet performance expectations,

implement evidence-based practices, create and sustain conditions for effective

learning, and increase student learning” (Learning Forward, 2011, p. 17).

• An executive principal, as defined by Merriam Webster Online, is the executive

officer of an elementary, middle school, or high school ("Principal definition,"

2014, number 1b). Based on the experience of the researchers, there is at least

one assistant principal that operates under the executive principal to assist with

the day-to-day operation of the school.

• Instructional leader is a term that the researchers are seeking to define through

this study. Bush (2011) provides the working definition as leadership

concentrated on teaching and learning. Rather than focusing on building

management or student behavior, instructional leaders focus on teacher behaviors

and attempt to develop teachers into more effective educators (pp. 16-18).

• Rural schools, for the purpose of this study, are those located far outside of

metropolitan areas. They have a high incidence of students with low

socioeconomic status and the majority of the economy of the area is generated by

agriculture or manufacturing.

• School context is a phrase used to group schools into categories based on

socioeconomic and geographical contexts. In this study, the researchers use the

terms rural, suburban, and urban to refer to school contexts.


• Suburban schools, for the purpose of this study, are those that border urban,

metropolitan areas. They have a low incidence of students with low

socioeconomic status and the majority of the students belong to families whose

head-of-house is a white-collar worker.

• The superintendent, based on the My Tennessee Public Schools website, is the

lead administrator and operations officer for the district. The superintendent is

appointed or hired by the school board. Frequently, the superintendent is

involved in hiring central office positions as well as focusing the mission and

vision of the school district. The superintendent also manages the budget and

lobbies for or against education policy changes that concern the school district

(My Tennessee Public Schools, n.d.).

• Tennessee stakeholders are those who can affect or can be affected by a

Tennessee school’s actions. The Tennessee State Board of Education (2012)

defines the school or district stakeholders in Tennessee as superintendents, school

boards, principals, teachers, students, parents, community leaders, and local

businesses (para. 2).

• Urban schools, for the purpose of this study, are those that exist in the inner-city

of metropolitan areas. They have a high incidence of students with low

socioeconomic status and the majority of their students come from families whose

head-of-house is a blue-collar worker.

• Value-added “is a statistical analysis used to measure the impact of districts,

schools and teachers on the academic progress rates of groups of students from

year-to-year” (TVAAS, 2015, para. 7)


Summary

The goal of this research study was to determine the identifying qualities of an effective

instructional leader as perceived by superintendents, administrators, and teachers in the state of

Tennessee. Previously, principals were seen largely as building and personnel managers, but due

to recent changes in education, the school principal is now expected to be an authority on

instruction and develop teachers to be more effective. Teachers have the most direct impact on

student achievement, and principals have the most direct impact on teachers.

The researchers used the conceptual framework as a guide to research the necessary

qualities for effective instructional leadership and the behaviors in which effective leaders

engage. The client, the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents, planned to use the

research results as a framework in the hiring process for targeting the most qualified applicants.

This research will aid in the increased success of Tennessee schools and student achievement.


Literature Review

Because instructional leadership is viewed by many as the ideal practice in school-level

leadership, many researchers have sought to add to the body of work involving the different

ways in which instructional leadership is practiced and its effects on student growth and

achievement. The following literature provides insight into methods of identifying effective

schools, different ways in which researchers have defined instructional leadership, how

instructional leadership manifests at the secondary level, and general leadership theories and

styles that enable leaders to be effective in any arena.

Leadership Theories and Styles

Trait theory. According to Northouse (2013), leadership trait theory originated in a

series of studies that collectively developed the “great man” theory. Initial research focused on

identifying the traits possessed by great historical leaders in society, politics, and military. The

idea was that leaders were born and not made. Theorists believed that certain people were born

with specific leadership traits, while others were born with follower traits. Eventually,

researchers began to question whether there were universal traits that separated leaders from

followers in all situations (p. 19). Through a century of research on this theory, an extended list

of leadership traits was developed. Northouse (2013) found that the following five traits were

central to the list: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (p. 23).

In their research of leadership that spans three decades, Kouzes and Posner (2012) have

found that when asking people to identify the seven characteristics they look for in individuals

they would willingly follow, four characteristics consistently receive more than 60% of the

votes: honest, forward-looking, competent, and inspiring (p. 35). The following are the top 10


characteristics in rank order: honest, forward-looking, competent, inspiring, intelligent, broad-

minded, fair-minded, dependable, supportive, and straightforward (p. 34).

Transformational leadership. Northouse (2013) described transformational leadership

as a “process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level

of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (p. 186) and a transformational

leader as one who “is attentive to the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers

reach their fullest potential” (p. 186). Therefore, the transformational leader achieves

organizational success by helping each individual member find individual success and growth as

well.

Marzano et al. (2005) found in their research that transformational leadership has its

place in educational leadership. They specifically cite the Four I’s of leadership identified by

Kenneth Leithwood (1994) as “necessary skills for school principals if they are to meet the

challenges of the 21st century” (p. 15). The Four I’s are individual consideration, intellectual

stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (p. 15).

Servant Leadership. Northouse (2013) framed servant leadership as a style of

leadership that is largely focused on how the leader appeals to the needs of the followers. Not

only does the servant leader need to be aware of the wants of the follower, but also needs to

“empathize with them, and nurture them” (p. 219). This approach builds a connection between

the leader and the follower, and shows the followers how much the leader cares.

Authentic leadership. Authentic leadership is a leadership style that is focused on the

behaviors and personality of the leader. Essentially, authentic leadership is leadership from the

heart. While the leader genuinely cares about the organization, the leader is also very self-aware.

Thus the leader knows his/her own strengths and weaknesses and is comfortable expressing this


to the followers. This helps to build trust in the leader. Another major tenant of authentic

leadership is leadership for the long term. The leader truly cares about the organization, so

he/she nurtures the followers and the organization itself, which is conducive to long-term

success.

Common Qualities of Different Leadership Styles

In their 2012 work, The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner asserted, “leadership

is not about who you are; it’s about what you do” (p. 15). While numerous authors throughout

the years have identified many different styles of leadership, there are common themes that are

contained within those styles. The themes that were identified by our literature review were

relationship building, trust, communication, life-long learning, and adaptability (Heifetz,

Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Northouse, 2013; Rath & Conchie, 2008;

Wiseman & McKeown, 2010).

Relationship Building. Great leaders cultivate their followers into leaders themselves.

The quality of the relationship between the leader and the followers is important and is especially

evident when developing a sense of trust. Kouzes and Posner (2012) found that there are certain

characteristics possessed by those who easily gain followers: honesty, vision, competency, and

the ability to inspire (p. 35).

Leaders are also able to foster strong relationships among their teams or staff. They

understand the importance of celebrations and know that operating in isolation contributes to a

lack of productivity. Leaders create opportunities for celebrations to remind staff that they are

part of a larger organization or community working towards a common goal (p. 312).

Trust. In order to maximize effectiveness of followers, leaders must establish a culture

of trust. Northouse (2013) pointed to trust as a vital facet of the transformational leadership


model. Kouzes and Posner (2012) viewed it as necessary for fostering collaboration among

team members, stating,

Individuals who are unable to trust others fail to become leaders, precisely because they

can’t bear to be dependent on the words and works of others. They either end up doing

all the work themselves or supervising work so closely that they become over-

controlling. Their obvious lack of trust in others results in others’ lack of trust in

them. To build and sustain social connections, you have to be able to trust others, and

others have to trust you. Trust is not just what’s in your mind; it’s also what’s in your

heart. (p. 219)

While trust involves risk, it leads to greater productivity, communication, and job

satisfaction (pp. 221-226). Without trust, it is difficult to lead effectively. In order to inspire and

create an environment of productivity, it is necessary to establish trust. If trust does not mutually

exist between leaders and followers, then the organization cannot be efficient.

Communicating. Communication is key to leadership. Without quality communication,

it is difficult to set goals or to collaborate. In order for an organization to function at its highest

potential, one person cannot do all the work. The leader must delegate, which means the

communication of common goals. Northouse (2013) cited research related to characteristics of

communication that lead to the emergence of leaders (p. 8). He went on to discuss further

research regarding the necessity of communication when leading in the manner of a servant-

leader. In this case, communication involves both listening and receiving feedback from those

on one’s team, as communication validates the ideas and perspectives of followers (p. 221-224).

Kouzes and Posner (2012) devoted ample space in The Leadership Challenge to the need

for communication. They saw it as necessary for animating vision, fostering team spirit and


focus, and enlisting the positive energy of others to accomplish the task at hand (p. 139-153).

Cultivating communication among followers is especially important when developing

cooperative goals and roles. In order to work collaboratively, people must develop relationships

with one another. Good communication is key to success in this area (p. 229-230).

Leaders as continuous learners. In addition to communication, Kouzes and Posner

(2012) held the belief that leaders must be lifelong learners because,

“…becoming the very best requires having a strong desire to excel, a strong belief that

new skills and abilities can be learned, and a willing devotion to deliberate practice and

continuous learning. No matter how good you are, you have to always want to be better.

The truth is that the best leaders are the best learners”. (p. 335)

Leaders must always be willing to learn from their mistakes. They must inspire others to do the

same. The willingness to continue to learn and improve provides the leader with credibility to

those that follow.

Learning is a focus in Rath and Conchie’s (2008) Strengths Based Leadership as well.

Listed as one of the 34 StrengthsFinder themes, the authors provided suggestions for working

both as a leader possessing learner traits and with others who show those traits. Affirmation of

the process of learning as well as the value of the learner is an important part of working with

individuals who are willing to stretch beyond their comfort zones. Realizing that there is a link

between learning and job performance, leaders should provide opportunities for those within

their organization to have opportunities to engage in both personal and group learning (p.199-

201).

Flexibility/Adaptability. Working in today’s economy means that change is inevitable.

Outsourcing of work is a real concern to U. S. employees because budget cuts require that


leaders do more with less. Heifetz et al. (2009) focused on the need for the adaptability of

leaders. Their article outlined the need for leaders to have the skills to not only navigate through

emergencies, but also to effectively change practices to meet the residual needs after the crisis

has diminished. In other words, reverting to “the way we’ve always done it” is no longer

acceptable in the age of fewer resources and employees. This type of leadership, labeled

“adaptive leadership,” requires the leader to ensure that relationships are built within teams that

must implement the work. During times of change, Heifetz et al. stated

Your empathy will be as essential for success as the strategic decisions you make about

what elements of the organizational DNA to discard. That is because you will need

people’s help—not their blind loyalty as they follow you on a path to the future but their

enthusiastic help in discovering that path. And if they are to assist you, you must equip

them with the ability to perform in an environment of continuing uncertainty and

uncontrollable change. (p. 3)

Adaptability is also a focus in Rath and Conchie’s (2008) Strengths Based Leadership.

In another of the 34 StrengthsFinder themes, the authors provided suggestions for working both

as a leader possessing adaptability traits and with others who show those traits. Leaders who are

adaptable are able to “go with the flow.” They are able to demonstrate both flexibility and

stability. Those who are adaptable can respond to the present task and also react effectively to

those unexpected events that may come their way, all the while maintaining relationships with

staff (p. 111-113).

How leadership qualities work together. Through a study of worldwide leaders for

approximately 30 years, Kouzes and Posner (2012) derived the five practices of great leaders:

Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable others to Act, and


Encourage the Heart (p. 15). The tasks involved in each of these five practices involve the need

for each of the attributes listed above.

Wiseman and McKeown (2010) saw leadership in terms of Multipliers and Diminishers.

Multipliers get the most from everyone around them, inspiring the desire to work harder and

more creatively to accomplish a task, while Diminishers present themselves as experts, or

keepers of knowledge, and—sometimes unknowingly—thwart their team’s abilities to work

independently.

Both of these frameworks of leadership share key attributes discussed above. Leaders

encourage those they are following. They know their team members and are able to develop

their strengths. While goals are clearly defined, team members are given latitude to make

decisions related to their work. Leaders are charged with inspiring others to reach their potential,

all the while guiding them towards a common goal.

Summary of the common qualities of leadership styles. Relationship building, trust,

communication, life-long learning, and adaptability appear in all of the leadership styles listed

previously in the literature review, and seem to be necessary for effective leaders regardless of

their particular leadership style. The issue is still how these leadership theories play out in an

educational setting and what effective leadership looks like in schools.

Leadership in the Educational Setting

Leadership styles. Effective leadership in schools has been a frequent topic of research.

As schools and society become more complex, the more sophisticated school leadership must

become. Although the shift in school-level leadership from being more management-focused to

being instruction-focused has changed several aspects of school leadership, general leadership

styles and principles still apply to leaders in education.


Transformational leadership. Northouse (2013) defined transformational leadership as

the ability of a leader to convince people to want to change, improve, and be led. It encompasses

the abilities to determine the motives, assess the needs, and measure the values of the followers.

A transformational leader “engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of

motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (p. 186). This leadership style

focuses on bringing the follower to his or her fullest potential. The opposite style of leadership is

transactional leadership. Northouse (2013) described transactional leadership as a leadership

style in which the follower is motivated toward compliance through a system of rewards and

punishments (p.186). Marzano et al. (2005) suggested that transactional leadership is concerned

with maintaining the status quo, while transformational leadership is focused on “producing

results beyond expectations” (p. 14). Keeping the status quo is largely seen as acceptable, but

other leadership styles are typically needed in order for advancement.

According to Balyer (2012), principals who exhibit a transformational leadership style

have a positive effect on their faculty. Transformational leadership behaviors are related to

greater teacher buy-in, better teacher performance, and increased job-satisfaction (p.588). If

principals are able to create a better work environment for their teachers and contribute to their

growth as professionals, then student test scores are more likely to rise.

Distributed leadership. Another leadership style that has shown success in research

studies is distributed leadership, also known as team leadership. Distributed leadership is the

idea that multiple people should share leadership in an organization. Spillane (2005) said that

school leadership is not about one individual leader, but about multiple individuals with various

skills and abilities (p. 143). This style of leadership plays on the strength of the followers as well

as the leader. The organization or school is allowed to capitalize on the strengths of the entire


staff, rather than suffering from the situational inadequacies of one leader. According to

Northouse (2013), the primary function of the leader in this style is to diagnose the problem and

work with the team to fix the problem. This framework empowers the staff and causes an

increase in staff buy-in and a shared vision between the followers and the leader (p. 305).

Spillane (2005) pointed out that this model is successful because it allows for the school or

organization to react to various situations effectively due to its reliance on the skills of multiple

people rather than one individual (p. 144).

Summary of leadership in the education setting. All of these leadership styles have

been researched significantly, and all of them have shown success in schools and organizations

in general. All of these leadership styles do share common themes that help paint a picture of the

behaviors and traits of effective leaders.

Backgrounds of effective school leaders. When hiring entities seek out candidates for

school-level administration, the first step is always an examination of the candidates’

qualifications. In order to identify the candidates who will have the greatest impact on student

achievement and growth, hiring entities need to know which qualifications indicate a greater

likelihood of success. The following research studies examine the role different backgrounds and

experiences play in the effectiveness of school-level administrators.

Teaching Experience. Different educational experiences will affect how well a principal

can perform the various roles needed to lead a school effectively. For many, advancing to an

administrative position seems like the next logical step for an accomplished teacher. School

principals and assistant principals require strong leadership skills, a deep understanding of school

structure, and creativity to meet challenges head on – all qualities also exemplified by teachers.

It makes sense for principals to have backgrounds in teaching. Teaching experience helps many


administrators better understand their roles and helps them perform their duties more effectively.

It also allows principals to understand how to identify with their teachers, taking into

consideration their needs and concerns, and providing advice during challenging periods of time.

According to Ballou and Podgursky (1995), greater teaching experience is the only prior

professional or educational experience that is linked to increased effectiveness (p. 248). Despite

this, most states only require a few years of teaching experience to qualify applicants for a

principal position (p. 250). However, Streshly and Gray (2008/2010) stated that “common

sense” experience markers of effective leaders are not necessarily backed up by empirical

research (p. 118). Pierson (2014) further established the importance of teaching experience in

regard to the principal role of instructional leader. The instructional leader role is relatively new

to the principal position, but is seen as one of the most effective roles relating to improving

teacher instruction and student learning. Previous teaching experience is a prerequisite for

recognizing quality teaching methods and strategies (p. 10).

Previous administration experience. Another common sense approach to the

background qualifications of effective principals is previous administrative experience. Pierson

(2014) asserted that the assistant principal position is often seen as a prerequisite for an executive

principalship (p. 51). The reason behind this is that assistant principals gain managerial

experience as well as experience in leading teachers (p. 23). Also, candidates for executive

principalships can demonstrate their potential at the assistant level. Essentially, the performance

level of the candidate at the assistant principal position can demonstrate their potential at the

executive level (p. 26). However, there is little research to suggest that an effective assistant

principal will be an effective executive principal.


Education. According to Pierson (2014) principals typically complete a master’s degree

in education or educational administration, which is required by most states. Programs in

educational administration, which focus on preparing students for the principalship and other

educational leadership roles, are designed for those who have teaching experience. States

approve principal preparation programs, but many states do not align program approval with

current research (p. 20). Also, Augustine et al. (2009) expressed the low accountability measures

for principal preparation programs due to the fact that recertification is typically not based on the

success of their graduates (pp. 24-25). Orphanos and Orr (2013) discovered that graduation from

“innovative” preparation programs, which all have selective admissions, internships, cohort

structures, and instructional leadership training, led to principal leadership practices that

improved teacher outcomes, and thus student outcomes (p. 18).

Pierson (2014) described some principal preparation programs partnering with school

districts and/or states for internship opportunities. In these partnerships, principal licensure

candidates will intern at schools within the state or school district, and the preparation program

will be tailored to the needs of that particular state or school district. This aids in preparing

future principals for the specific environment in which they will work. School districts also

sometimes offer their own principal preparation program that provides professional development

for existing principals and training for prospective principals (pp. 20-21). This allows for school

systems to recruit current and future principals from those already employed in the organization.

Defining Instructional Leadership

Twenty-one responsibilities of a school leader. Marzano et al. (2005) developed the 21

responsibilities of a school leader through the meta-analyses of all available research on school


leadership from the 1970s until 2005 when the analysis was published. Marzano et al. (2005)

used studies for their meta-analysis that met the following criteria:

• Involved K-12 students

• Involved United States schools or those that closely mirrored them

• Examined the relationship between school leadership and student achievement

• Academic achievement was based on standardized achievement assessments

• Effect correlation could be measured (p. 28)

After an extensive search for literature, Marzano et al. (2005) found 69 studies that met

the established criteria. The studies covered elementary, middle, and high school, but studies

regarding elementary schools dominated the literature. Most of the studies used a questionnaire

to ask teachers about their perceptions of school leadership behaviors. Teachers were considered

to be the most reliable data source on principal leadership because of their proximity to the daily

operations of the school and principal leadership. The responses were then used to compute or

extract a correlation between principal leadership and student achievement. The average

correlation determined by the meta-analysis was .25. This shows a strong correlation between

principal leadership and student achievement (pp. 29-30).

Then, Marzano, et al. (2005) further analyzed those 69 studies looking for specific

behaviors related to effective principal leadership. Through this meta-analysis, 21 categories of

behaviors were identified, and Marzano et al. (2005) referred to them as the “21 Responsibilities

of a School Leader” (p. 41). Those 21 responsibilities were affirmation; change agent;

contingent rewards; communication; culture; discipline; flexibility; focus; ideal/beliefs; input;

intellectual stimulation; involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment; knowledge of

curriculum, instruction, and assessment; monitoring/evaluating; optimizer; order; outreach;


relationships; resources; situational awareness; and visibility (p. 42). These 21 responsibilities

validate many of the leadership theories, but also provide new insights into the nature of school

leadership.

Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium. Educational leadership is at the

forefront of educational research and debate due to the recent reform movement and the focus on

standardized testing achievement data. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

(ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders: 2008 is designed to serve as general national guidelines

for school leadership. States can then use the ISLLC Standards as a basis for developing

individualized standards. These standards outline the traits, functions of work, and

responsibilities expected of school and district leaders. The ISLLC: 2008 standards are an update

of the standards released in 1996. The update occurred because the 1996 standards were viewed

as too restrictive, but also because a considerable amount of research was conducted between

1996 and 2008. The ISLLC: 2008 standards address the new research in the field while also

responding to the input of current educational leaders and policy makers (Council of Chief State

School Officers, 2008, p. 5).

The new standards were designed through a two-year process headed by the National

Policy Board of Educational Administration (NPBEA). The NPBEA consulted with its member

organizations, as well as other educational leadership organizations, researchers, higher

education officials, and other leaders in the educational arena. They also created a panel of

scholars and experts to identify the theoretical framework for updating the 1996 standards. They

then used a triangulation of data to develop the ISLLC: 2008 standards that currently help shape

educational leadership development programs, state standards, and evaluation models (Council

of Chief State School Officers, 2008, pp. 7-8).


Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards. According to the Tennessee State

Board of Education (2013), Tennessee adopted a comprehensive educator evaluation system

based upon student outcomes in July of 2011. This implementation was a key element to

Tennessee’s plan to win the federal Race to the Top competition. The new evaluation system

emphasized several leadership skills that were not addressed by the previous Tennessee

Instructional Leadership Standards (TILS). In order to stay current and give active and future

school leaders in Tennessee a framework for success, the Tennessee Department of Education

redesigned and updated the TILS. Previously, the TILS focused on a management model for

educational leadership, and the revision focuses on an instructional leadership model (pp. 1-2).

Link between Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement

A successful school is one in which all students achieve. Effective principals

theoretically lead successful schools; therefore, principals are held accountable for the student

achievement in their schools. This is interesting because there is no direct link, discovered

through research, between student achievement and principal leadership. However, principals do

share an indirect link with student success due to their effect on the school culture, environment,

and teachers. Essentially, principals can affect instruction by removing obstacles to learning,

providing support for teachers, and by making appropriate personnel hires. Leithwood, Seashore

Louis, Anderson and Walstrom (2004) stated “leadership is second only to classroom instruction

among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school” (p. 3). This

research also concluded that there are “no documented instances of troubled schools being turned

around without intervention by a powerful leader” (p. 3). With these two claims, Leithwood et

al. (2004) stated that increased student achievement and successful reform are not likely to occur

without effective leadership.


When Marzano et al. (2005) conducted their previously mentioned meta-analysis, they

“examined 69 studies involving 2,802 schools, approximately 1.4 million students, and 14,000

teachers” (p. 10) to find the link between administrators and student achievement. They found a

.25 correlation between the leadership behaviors of the principal and the average academic

achievement of the students (p. 10). Therefore, the researchers concluded that “principals can

have a profound effect on the achievement of students in their schools” (p. 38).

In order to make the research useful for practitioners, Marzano et al. (2005) quantified the

relationship between each of these responsibilities and its effect on student achievement. Though

all of the 21 responsibilities are important and valuable and the size of their correlations have

only a .15 range, for the purpose of this case study the focus will be on the 11 responsibilities

with the strongest relationships to student achievement, which all have a correlation size of .25

or greater.

The 11 responsibilities with the strongest relationships to student achievement from

greatest to least are (1) situational awareness, (2) flexibility, (3) discipline, (4) outreach, (5)

monitoring/evaluating, (6) culture, (7) order, (8) resources, (9) knowledge of curriculum,

instruction, and assessment, (10) input, and (11) change agent (p. 63). The remaining 10

responsibilities are focus; contingent rewards; intellectual stimulation; communication;

ideals/beliefs; involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment; visibility; optimizer;

affirmation; and relationships (p. 63).

Situational awareness. Marzano et al. (2005) described situational awareness as the

leader’s ability to maintain “awareness of the details and the undercurrents regarding the

functioning of the school and their use of this information to address current and potential

problems” (p. 60). Situational awareness has a .33 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).


Flexibility. Marzano et al. (2005) considered flexibility to be the “extent to which leaders

adapt their leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and are comfortable with

dissent” (p. 49). Flexibility has a .28 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Discipline. Marzano et al. (2005) explained the leadership behavior of discipline as

“protecting teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their instructional time

or focus (p. 48). Discipline has a .27 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Outreach. Marzano et al. (2005) described outreach as “the extent to which the leader is

an advocate and a spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders” (p. 58). Outreach has a .27

correlation with student achievement (p. 63). The authors further defined outreach to include

enabling stakeholders to participate in the culture of the school (p. 58).

Monitoring/Evaluating. Marzano et al. (2005) described monitoring and evaluating as

the responsibility of leaders to provide feedback in a systematic way (p. 55). Monitoring and

evaluating have a .27 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Culture. Marzano et al. (2005) asserted that “an effective leader builds a culture that

positively influences teachers, who, in turn, positively influence students” (p. 47). The

researchers linked four specific behaviors to positive culture building: “promoting cohesion

among staff, promoting a sense of well-being among staff, developing an understanding of

purpose among staff, and developing a shared vision of what the school could be like” (p. 48).

Culture has a .25 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Other researchers have also found that a positive school culture can be a powerful force

to student achievement. According to Goldring (2002), “research has identified a positive

connection between a school’s culture and student achievement” (p. 32), as evidenced by a

survey of California teachers and principals. She further identified six key traits of school


culture: shared vision, traditions, collaboration, shared decision-making, innovation, and

communication (p. 33).

In his article on the social intelligence of leaders, Goleman (2006) asserted that brain

research supports the idea that school climate and school culture are important to school success

(p. 77). He described school climate as “the summation of all the positive and negative

interactions among all people at the school in a given day “(p. 77). He offered a suggestion for

school-wide behavior: “Best practices for learning include having teachers, school staff, and

leaders all contribute to a positive school environment typified by trust and caring relationships”

(p. 77).

Additionally, Goleman (2006) identified six leadership styles: visionary, coaching,

democratic, affirmative, pacesetting, and commanding (p. 79). The four former styles were

identified as useful for helping to create a positive school climate (p. 79). Ideally, leaders would

use all of the styles when appropriate, but the two latter ones sparingly (p. 79). A leader who is

democratic “knows when to listen and ask for input; gets buy-in and draws on what others know

to make better decisions” (p. 81), while a leader who is a pacesetter “leads by hard-driving

example and expects others to meet the same pace and high performance standards; tends to give

Fs, not As” (p. 81).

Goleman (2006) found that “a study of head-teachers (principals) in Great Britain found

that each leader's personal style strongly affected both the climate for teachers and, in turn,

students' academic achievement” (p. 79). The study found that teachers felt most satisfied and

did their best job when they “perceived that the school head (1) led flexibly rather than sticking

to needless rules, (2) let them teach in their own way, holding them accountable for the results,


(3) set challenging but realistic goals for excellence, and (4) valued their efforts, recognizing a

job well done (p. 79).

Order. Marzano et al. (2005) defined order as “the extent to which the leader establishes

a set of standard operating principles and routines (p. 57). This includes specific behaviors of

providing and reinforcing clear structures, rules, and procedures for both staff and students (p.

57). Order has a .25 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Resources. Marzano et al. (2005) defined resources as “the extent to which the leader

provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the successful

execution of their duties (p. 60). The leadership responsibility of resources has a .25 correlation

with student achievement (p. 63).

Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Marzano et al. (2005) defined

knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment as “the extent to which the leader is aware

of best practices in these domains (p. 54). Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment

has a .25 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Input. According to Marzano et al. (2005), “input refers to the extent to which the school

leader involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies”

(p. 51). Input has a .25 correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Change Agent. According to Marzano et al. (2005), “change agent refers to the leader’s

disposition to challenge the status quo (p. 44). The change agent responsibility also has a .25

correlation with student achievement (p. 63).

Marzano et al. (2005) also discussed the relationships the 21 responsibilities have with

one another, particularly when it comes to effecting change. The authors delineate between first

order change and second order change (p. 65). The authors described first order change as


incremental: “It can be thought of as the next most obvious step to take in a school or district” (p.

66). First order change taps into all of the 21 responsibilities, but the following are the top seven:

monitoring/evaluating, culture, ideals/beliefs, knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and

instruction, involvement in curriculum, assessment, and instruction, focus, and order (p. 69).

Second order change involves change that includes “dramatic departures from the expected” (p.

66). Second order change specifically requires exactly seven of the 21 responsibilities:

knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, optimizer, intellectual stimulation, change

agent, monitoring/evaluating, flexibility, and ideals/beliefs (p.70).

Collaboration. In order to determine the necessary components to effecting change

successfully, Lesaux, Burkhauser, and Kelley (2013) studied the implementation of a Common

Core curriculum change initiative, and they asserted that collaboration is important, especially

when implementing new initiatives: “Time to collaborate is one of the most powerful supports

that teachers can use during change initiatives (p. 40). Unfortunately, collaboration does not just

happen; there must be infrastructure in place for collaboration to occur. The authors argued that

collaboration is important for providing encouragement, support, and in building teacher

efficacy. Additionally, the authors contended that collaboration is important for generating “new

knowledge of what strategies or materials work especially well within the local context of a

given school or for a given type of student” (p. 43). The teachers in the study collaborated by

sharing ideas, strategies, and resources and also discussed their struggles and triumphs regarding

the implementation efforts (p. 43). Finally, they found that principals need to lead the charge.

The principal holds the power in “arranging teachers’ schedules, organizing teacher teams, and

generally setting norms for teacher collaboration” (p. 43).


Elements of Instructional Leadership at the Secondary Level

All three of the traditional schooling levels are important to students’ social, emotional,

and cognitive development. Elementary schools are important because they start the whole

educational journey. Middle schools serve students during crucial transition years in which the

students are becoming independent in all aspects of their lives. High schools are significant

because they serve as the final avenue of influence before these students become responsible

adults and continue on toward post-secondary education or the workforce. When Marzano et al.

(2005) conducted the meta-analysis on instructional leadership that has contributed to this

study’s theoretical framework, they included a disproportionately large number of studies that

researched elementary schools. Out of the 64 studies included in the meta-analysis, 36 focused

on elementary schools. Middle schools represented only six studies, and high schools

represented only nine. Clearly there was a shortage of studies at the secondary level that met

their criteria. Consequently, more studies at the secondary level would help to confirm, modify,

or deny the results at which they arrived in their meta-analysis. The following literature was

synthesized from research studies that focused on how instructional leadership manifests at the

secondary level.

Distributed leadership. Because middle schools and high schools are significantly

larger than elementary schools in terms of both campus size and student population, they tend to

have more administrators in the building. This increased number of administrators often results

in shared or distributed leadership. In shared or distributed leadership, different entities within

the building are assigned roles and responsibilities from the list of administrative tasks. In

Schneider’s (2006) case study, she found that administrative liaisons, or assistant principals

assigned to individual departments, along with department heads, worked together to provide


instructional leadership (p. 78). Furthermore, the results of the survey she conducted showed

that all 22 aspects of instructional leadership included in the survey were present in the school,

but the individual aspects were distributed among the members of the leadership team (pp. 81-

82). No single individual was seen as the instructional leader.

The extent to which instructional leadership is shared or distributed varies, however,

between middle schools and high schools due to the same differences that separate elementary

and secondary schools. Garcia (1999) found this when he compared the findings of high school

studies of instructional leadership with his own study of middle school instructional leadership:

“the structure of middle schools, unlike high schools, with smaller student populations, fewer

teachers, and less administrative assistants, allows middle school principals to engage in more

instructional leadership behaviors, not by choice, but rather by necessity” (p. 139). One can

assume that if this is the main reason why instructional leadership responsibilities tend to be

shared or distributed at the high school level, then smaller high schools would likely show more

instructional leadership behaviors exhibited by the principal as opposed to assistant principals.

Effects of distributed leadership on student achievement. Shared or distributed

leadership can be linked to increased student achievement. In a study on suburban Chicago Blue

Ribbon schools, Stacey (2001) found that “recognizing others as instructional leaders” (p. 165) is

the primary way in which the principals of those Blue Ribbon schools engaged in instructional

leadership:

When implementing instructional leadership practices, Chicago suburban “Blue Ribbon”

high school principals rely heavily on others serving as instructional leaders (e.g., department

chairs and assistant principals/superintendents for curriculum and instruction) instead of serving

as the primary instructional leaders of their buildings. (p. 166)


Marzano et al. (2005) coined this administrator behavior as input, which was defined as,

“the extent to which the school leader involves teachers in the design and implementation of

important decisions and policies,” (p. 51), and they found it to have a .25 correlation with student

achievement (p. 63). In seeking to confirm Marzano et al. (2005) results and measure them at

the high school level, input was one of only four behaviors that Schindler (2012) identified as

having a positive relationship with student achievement at the high school level: “When

principals involved teachers in the processes and decision making of the school (input), student

achievement increased” (p. 92).

Effects of distributed leadership on assistant principals. Although shared or distributed

instructional leadership empowers some, it sometimes makes instructional leadership more

difficult to achieve for others. In a case study of the instructional leadership of assistant

principals in Northern California high schools, Garrard (2013) found that when leadership is

shared or distributed, assistant principals actually find it more difficult to serve as instructional

leaders. In this study, “these assistant principals shared that they did not see themselves as the

leader often in their responsibilities, since often the principal or the teachers have been

empowered with the right to make the final decisions” (p. 127). The assistant principals saw

themselves as facilitators and felt they had less direct influence on account of the empowerment

of department heads and program coordinators (p. 128). They saw themselves more as resource-

gatherers and providers of the tools that these other entities need in order to engage in


Oftentimes, the assistant principals felt they were actually barred from engaging in

certain instructional leadership functions because of their assigned duties and participation and

inclusion, or lack thereof, in certain collaborative teams (pp. 135-139). Although the students


are still benefitting from the instructional leadership behaviors regardless of who is exhibiting

them, the implication is that these assistant principals are wasted resources. Additionally, they

are missing out on valuable learning opportunities and professional growth, which may stunt

their readiness for and promotion to serving as an executive principal (pp. 140-141).

Howard-Schwind (2010) found in her study of principals and assistant principals in large

Texas high schools that another reason why assistant principals struggled to engage in

instructional leadership behaviors stemmed from juggling the managerial tasks assigned to them.

They expressed a strong desire for small managerial tasks to be “shifted to paraprofessionals or

non-certified staff so that assistant principals could focus on instructional leadership activities”

(p. 86).

Framing school goals. In her study comparing the critical attributes of instructional

leaders of Texas Blue Ribbon schools and those of unrecognized schools in Texas, Brown (1991)

found that “Principals of Blue Ribbon Schools in Texas place greater importance on the

behavioral skills that comprise the process of framing the school goals than do principals of non-

recognized schools in Texas” (p. 141). She was not the only one to find value in framing school

goals to be an attribute of leaders of high-achieving schools. In a study comparing urban

comprehensive high schools and magnet schools, McCier (2003) found that framing school goals

was one of the statistically significant differences between comprehensive high schools and

magnet schools (p. 109). In his study of high-and average-achieving schools with diverse

student populations, Garcia (1999) found that framing the school’s goals was the highest rated

instructional leader function (p. 124).

Framing the school’s goals has also been shown to have a relationship with performance.

Johnson (2006) found in her study of Tennessee high school principals that principals of high


achieving, low performing schools framed goals less often than those of other schools. In other

words, in schools in which the students are achieving high scores but not showing growth, their

administrators tend to frame goals less frequently. They do not tend to involve the faculty and

staff in goal setting, and they communicate goals less frequently (pp. 112-113).

However, there were mixed results among the literature concerned with the connection

between goals and student achievement. In a study comparing the instructional leadership

behaviors of both high- and low-achieving schools, Fulton (2009) found that framing school

goals was a behavior in which school leaders at both high- and low-achieving schools

participated, meaning he was unable to link it directly to student achievement. Regardless of the

link, however, framing or communicating goals was an identified behavior present in all of the

studies of instructional leadership at the secondary level which were included in this review of

the literature.

Protecting instructional time. The other critical attribute Brown (1991) found to be

different between Texas schools recognized as Blue Ribbon Schools and those Texas schools

which were not is the value the respective principals place on protecting instructional time:

“Principals of Blue Ribbon Schools in Texas place greater importance on the behavioral skills

that comprise the process of protecting instructional time than do principals of non-recognized

schools in Texas” (p. 142). This, too, is another commonly cited instructional leadership

behavior in secondary schools.

Even though the assistant principals in Garrard’s (2013) study felt limited in their

capacity to engage in instructional leadership, protecting instructional time was one of the ways

in which the assistant principals felt they could have a positive impact on instruction. In one

specific example, an assistant principal calculated that by conducting administrative tasks


through students’ English classes, their English teachers lost an entire week’s worth of

instruction throughout the school year. Once she had discovered this, she became passionate

about protecting instructional time and “has taken on the responsibility of facilitating ways to

protect instructional time, specifically when it comes to core subjects” (p. 130).

According to Johnson’s (2006) study of Tennessee high schools, failing to protect

instructional time may hinder growth: “principals of high-achieving, low-performing schools less

frequently protected instructional time” (p. 114). Protecting instructional time was also one of

the statistically significant differences between urban comprehensive high schools and magnet

schools (McCier, 2003, p. 109).

Coordinating the curriculum. Fulton (2009) found that “principals who coordinate the

curriculum positively influence student achievement” (p. 139). He defined coordinating the

curriculum as identifying stakeholders responsible for curriculum development, utilizing

assessments to shape and drive curriculum development, and actively participating in reviewing

the curriculum (p. 61). His study is not the only one that indicated that coordinating the

curriculum is a function associated with instructional leadership at the secondary level.

Schneider (2006), Marshall (2005), Garrard (2013), Stacey (2001), and McCier (2003) all cited

coordinating the curriculum as a valuable component of instructional leadership at the secondary

level.

Non-evaluative feedback. Multiple studies of schools at the secondary level showed

that providing feedback was one of the ways in which school leaders engaged in instructional

leadership. In her case study of a large high school, Schneider (2006) cited that both the

department heads and administrative liaisons gave non-evaluative, informal feedback that the

teachers found helpful in improving their practice (p. 80-87). In his case study of high school


assistant principals in Northern California, Garrard (2013) also found that non-evaluative

feedback was a valuable way of coaching teachers because it is less threatening to teachers and

facilitates improved conversations about the teachers’ practice (p. 133). In her study of Blue

Ribbon schools in suburban Chicago, Stacey (2001) found monitoring teaching and learning,

which includes evaluating and providing feedback, to be the fourth most important instructional

leadership function (p. 165).

Clinical supervision. One form of non-evaluative feedback is the clinical supervision, or

CS, model. In this model, school leaders focus “on helping teachers improve their performance

through the analysis and feedback of observed events in the classroom” (Snyder, 1981, p. 521). It

was based on an observation cycle that included pre-observation and goal setting, observation,

and post-observation feedback and next steps. Although the principles of observation, analysis,

and feedback involved in CS eventually transformed into a basis for teacher evaluation, its

purpose and primary value were in teacher growth through formative observation. Snyder (1981)

asserted that “CS, used as a coaching system, has the potential for catapulting schools into a new

set of standards for excellence” (p. 524). Snyder (1981) warned, however, that when CS is used

as part of an inspection system, “it becomes less a helping technology and more an evaluation

technology. CS offers far more promise when viewed as part of a comprehensive teacher

development system that aims at more ambitious goals” (P. 524). This model’s history, with its

conception in the 1950s and continued use in some capacity through to the new millennium,

demonstrates the value in non-evaluative feedback while also bringing attention to the tendency

for systems to convert formative models to more threatening and less effective summative

evaluation systems.


Summary of the elements of instructional leadership at the secondary level. On

account of school size, population, and personnel allotments, instructional leadership manifests

differently at the secondary level than it does at the elementary level. Most high schools and

some middle schools participate in shared or distributed leadership. This distributed leadership

usually includes assistant principals, but it is also extended to department heads, program

coordinators, and district superintendents of instruction.

In addition to garnering input and participation of those with whom instructional

leadership has been shared, the most commonly cited functions of instructional leadership at the

secondary level are framing (and communicating) school goals, protecting instructional time,

coordinating the curriculum, and providing non-evaluative feedback. Each of these functions can

be broken down further into the specific behaviors associated with them.

The Administrator Recruitment and Selection Process

Hiring effective administrators goes beyond just knowing what to look for; it also

includes knowing how to recognize talent when seen as well as being able to find and attract that

talent. In a recent report, Doyle and Locke (2014) detailed the results of their study on how to

find administrators who will be successful, especially when it comes to improving student

achievement to turn schools around.

Doyle and Locke (2014) introduced the problem of administrator recruitment and

selection by establishing what they consider to be a well-known but often over-looked fact:

principals matter. They further detailed the value of the school principal by citing research

studies that show that, after teachers, principals have the greatest impact on student achievement

because of their ability to “shape a vision of academic success, set a positive tone and culture in

a building, and cultivate leadership in others” (p. 9). These leadership behaviors go above and


beyond the management responsibilities they already have. In fact, the job has become a grueling

one, requiring a great amount of responsibility and accountability that far exceed the little

amount of autonomy afforded to most building-level leaders. The researchers of this article

clearly identified a disturbing issue: “Far too many principals lack the wherewithal—authority,

resources, capacity, etc.—to lead effectively” (p. 1).

The researchers contended that the recruitment, selection, and placement procedures were

contributing to the failures of principals to lead effectively. In order to identify better ways of

recruiting, selecting, and placing principal candidates, the researchers aimed to answer three

questions:

1. How do these districts identify, recruit, select, and place high-potential candidates for

the principalship?

2. To what extent do these practices help districts in hiring great school leaders?

3. What steps can these and other districts take to ensure that, going forward, they hire

the best candidates to lead their schools? (p. 10).

In answering these questions, the researchers were hoping to add to previous research two

research parameters that differ from previous studies: (1) the fact that the study includes the

entire hiring process and (2) the fact that the study builds on research drawn from non-education

sectors in addition to education sectors (p. 10). In the end, the researchers aimed to be able to

suggest improvements to recruitment, selection, and placement procedures.

Doyle and Locke (2014) conducted their study and compiled their research “over a nine-

month period from August 2013 to April 2014” (p. 11). Their study included five urban districts

chosen for their diversity in “size, geography, presence of alternative principal pipelines,

contractual protections for principals, the role of community-based councils in principal hiring,


and degree of union activity” (p. 38). They collected data in three different ways: observing,

interviewing, and surveying. The researchers paid day-long visits to each district through which

to collect observation data. They conducted interviews with both district staff and with newly-

hired principals. They also surveyed both candidates who were hired and those who were not.

Additionally, the researchers analyzed qualitative and quantitative data:

o Documents outlining hiring process

o Data on principal applicants

o Statistics on hiring process itself, such as

§ Number of vacancies

§ Number of initial applicants

§ Number of applicants advancing to each successive round of selection

process (p. 11).

Unfortunately, many of the districts were unable to supply adequate data because of their own

confidentiality policies or because they failed to collect or record such data.

Key findings. The researchers’ primary finding “is that principal hiring practices—even

in pioneering districts—continue to fall short of what is needed, effectively causing needy

schools to lose out on leaders with the potential to be great” (p. 10). Under this general,

overarching finding, the researchers identified seven specific recruitment, selection, and

placement practices that have contributed to the overall finding and categorized them by where

they fall in the process: three in recruitment, two in selection, and two in placement.

Recruitment. The researchers identified three issues with the recruitment processes they

found at the five participating schools. Their first finding was that “inadequate pay and grueling

work make the principalship a tough sell in many districts, especially for experienced teachers”


(p. 12). The researchers based this finding on the fact that accountability for school principals is

on the rise, but the pay differential between teachers and administrators relative to the amount of

responsibility and accountability does not add up. Additionally, because teachers are now being

given multiple opportunities to be paid for extra teacher leader duties or for stellar performance,

the difference between teacher and administrator pay is rapidly shrinking.

The second finding was that “budget constraints and meager success hiring external

candidates have led some districts to focus almost entirely on growing their own school leaders”

(p. 12). In two of the five districts, all of their vacancies were filled with internal candidates. In

the remaining three, a majority of their vacancies were filled with internal applicants (p. 14). The

district representatives cited several reasons why hiring internally was desirable. For one, the

districts had previously spent too much money on external candidates for too little evidence of

success. Second, the external candidates, when hired, failed to understand and grasp the culture

of the school or district. Third, the external candidates only tended to stay two to three years, and

fourth, hiring external candidates hurt the morale of already existing district employees (Doyle &

Locke, 2014, pp. 14-15).

The researchers did find opportunities for external candidates to be more successful. The

money for recruitment is there. All five of the districts had some type of principal development

program in order to train internal applicants. Because those training programs are so costly, there

was room for the districts to spend more money on external applicants. Additionally, the district

employees conceded that the cultural mismatch issues that would often occur could have been

mitigated had there been a program or effort in place to acclimatize the new principals to the

district (p. 16). As to external candidates leaving in two to three years, the researchers found that


candidates with some kind of attachment to the region and those who were from sectors other

than education tended to stay longer.

The third finding was that “recruitment practices that are often informal or passive (or

both) likely overlook some high-potential talent” (p. 12). Essentially, the researchers found that

informal or passive recruitment practices left too much room for networking to play an

unnecessarily large role in the recruitment process. In essence, whether or not a high-potential

candidate was recognized by the district came down to the alertness of his or her supervisors.

Additionally, turn-over of supervisors meant that any high-potential candidates who had been

identified by the leaving supervisor would be overlooked (p. 17).

Selection. The fourth finding was that “many districts are now incorporating research-

based practices from both education and other sectors to select among principal candidates” (p.

20). They also added the caveat that “few examine hard data demonstrating candidates’ prior

effectiveness supporting student achievement” (p. 20). The researchers found that in general

there were three steps to the selection process: (1) identify required competencies and skills in

detail, (2) provide candidates with the opportunities to demonstrate those competencies and

skills, and (3) evaluate the candidates against those competencies (p. 21). The most common

themes identified as desirable competencies and skills were instructional expertise, people

management, cultural leadership, and problem solving (p. 21). The districts used different

methods of enabling the candidates to demonstrate these competencies and skills. Some asked

questions intended to reveal competencies. Some asked candidates to provide an example of a

situation from his or her past, and some provided hypothetical situations to which the candidates

were asked to respond with how they would handle the situation. However, the ways in which

the candidates’ responses were scored was often informal or inconsistent. While three of the


districts used rubrics to score the responses, those rubrics were fairly broad and allowed for a

great many differences in scoring (Doyle & Locke, 2014, pp. 23-24).

The fifth finding was that “efforts to standardize the selection process have made ‘whom

you know’ within the district less important” (p. 26). In two of the five districts, the central office

has made concerted efforts to revise their selection process with the intention of cutting down on

selection on account of “whom a candidate knows.” The standardized selection processes were

designed to be merit-based, but some candidates still believe that “whom you know” plays a role.

In one district, “a third of the survey respondents who received an offer to lead a school indicated

that existing personal relationships with central-office employees are ‘very’ or ‘extremely’

influential in the district’s final hiring decisions” (p. 26). Those who were not selected felt this

sentiment even more strongly than those who were selected; more than half of them believed

such relationships to be very or extremely influential (p. 26).

Placement. Doyle and Locke’s (2014) sixth finding was that “districts generally lack a

clear and consistent process to assess candidates’ fit with specific schools” (p. 27). The

researchers found that placement almost always has a local, school community-level component

whereby teachers, parents, and other stakeholders interview candidates and submit their top

choices. One of the issues the researchers identified with this practice is that often the candidate

selected as top choice for schools is the top choice at other schools as well. Another issue is that

local community hiring committees are ignorant of the district needs as a whole. Consequently,

there may be three candidates well-suited for their school but only one candidate well-suited for

another school. If they snag that candidate as their top choice, the other school is left with an ill-

suited candidate. Yet another issue is that often the majority of these local school community


hiring committees is made up of laypersons or non-administrative faculty who may not be

entirely qualified to know what qualities are needed for a principal in their school (pp. 27-29).

The seventh finding is simple; it is that “late hiring causes some candidates to drop out”

(p. 30). Oftentimes, principals resign during the summer, and high-potential candidates have

already been hired elsewhere by the time the district is ready to look for a replacement.

Conclusions. The researchers came to several conclusions concerning recruitment,

selection, and placement of principals. First, they concluded that “too few high-quality

candidates likely apply for school leadership positions” (p. 31). However, the researchers

acknowledged that there is, as of yet, no widespread, agreed-upon definition of “quality.” They

also believe that the hiring practices of the districts are not giving enough weight to their

candidates’ past successes in improving student achievement.

Another conclusion at which they arrived is that “strengthening candidate quality means

making the principalship more attractive” (p. 32). The researchers stated that the over-reliance on

internal applicants and lack of investment in external candidate recruitment means that districts

are missing out on many high-potential candidates (p. 32). Additionally, they found that the job

“simply demands too much—and pays too little” (p. 33) to be attractive to top talent. Finally, the

job is unattractive because of its inappropriate levels of responsibility and autonomy (Doyle &

Locke, 2014, p. 33).

The researchers also concluded that “the impact of changes in the selection process is

largely unknown” (p. 33). Although several of the studied districts had revised their recruitment,

selection, and placement procedures, none of them had measured or evaluated whether or not the

system has been effective. The researchers identified four areas of potential error in their revised

hiring processes: (1) they are evaluating the wrong things, (2) they are using invalid rubrics, (3)


they are using the rubrics incorrectly, or (4) they have failed to “provide adequate opportunities

for all candidates to demonstrate competence” (pp. 33-34).

The final conclusion at which the researchers arrived was that the “quality of match

between principal schools is a mystery” (p. 34). Three of the five districts they studied “replaced

20 to 25 percent of their principals last year,” (p. 34) so the quality of principal placement is

unknown.

Recommendations. On account of these conclusions, Doyle and Locke (2014) suggested

six recommendations. First, the job needs to be more appealing, which means increased

autonomy, support, and resources. Second, principals need to be paid more, and their pay should

be commensurate with the demands of the job. Third, districts need to be more active in their

recruitment. Specifically, they need to “(1) develop criteria to identify promising principal

candidates, (2) actively seek out those candidates, (3) identify and prepare internal candidates

systematically and early, (4) eliminate barriers that might discourage potential talent” (pp. 35-

36). Fourth, districts need to “evaluate candidates against the competencies and skills that

successful principals are known to possess” (p. 36). Fifth, they need to “design the placement

process to match schools’ needs with candidates’ strengths” (p. 36). Finally, they suggest that

districts “continually evaluate hiring efforts” (p. 36).

Methods of Identifying High-Performing Schools

Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System. The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment

System, or TVAAS, is a system by which the state of Tennessee measures student growth. These

student growth measures are then used to measure the effect levels of individual teachers,

individual schools, and individual school districts.


According to the Tennessee Department of Education’s (2014c) annual Report Card,

levels 4 or 5 indicate that a district, school, or teacher has exceeded the expected amount of

growth for a student. At the school level, this is based on an average of all of the students in the

school for which data was collected on a standardized test during any designated school year

(para. 2).

Reward Schools. In 2012, Tennessee decided to opt out of certain portions of the No

Child Left Behind accountability system. The state secured a waiver and then created its own

accountability system. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2012), the state

proposed an accountability system that made the following provisions:

A state accountability system requiring, in aggregate, significant growth in student

achievement in core subjects, and cutting the achievement gap between different sub-groups of

students would replace the annual designation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for school

districts and schools.

An accountability structure that identifies the top performing schools for recognition and

creates meaningful, tailored interventions for the bottom 5 % of schools in absolute performance

and the 10 % of schools with the largest achievement gaps statewide would replace the AYP

structure that was designating most schools in the state eligible for state takeover.

Flexible spending would allow school districts to expand services for low-income

students and would strongly encourage and reward success by offering greater flexibility for

schools and LEAs reaching ambitious targets (pp. 6-7).

In accordance with this No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver, and in an effort to

continually support schools, the Tennessee Department of Education (2014b) names priority,

focus, and reward schools (para. 6). Reward schools are in the top 5 % for either student


achievement or student growth (para. 7). Focus schools are the 10% of schools with the highest

achievement gaps throughout the state (para. 9). An achievement gap is an observed disparity

between socioeconomic, racial, or special need groups. Priority schools are the lowest 5% of

schools in regard to student achievement. These schools are eligible for the Achievement School

District and may adopt radical reform models to increase achievement (para. 8).

The Tennessee Department of Education (2014a) named 169 total Reward Schools for

the 2013 school year that represented a combination of 52 districts. Seventy of the reward

schools were Title I schools. Metropolitan Nashville Public School District had a total of 12

reward schools (para. 4).

Summary of Literature Review

Schools all have one thing in common—the challenging task of helping students to reach

their greatest potential—but they often go about it in different ways. Because Tennessee Reward

Schools are defined by their ranking as the top 5% of all schools in the state in performance and

achievement, it is worth examining the way in which those schools go about educating their

students. Reward schools for progress are recognized based on their TVAAS composite scores.

TVAAS scoring provides a way of measuring how well schools are growing their students while

taking into account the different levels of achievement students possess when they start the

school year. It is recognized nationally as a reliable method of measuring the effect that schools

and individual teachers have on their students. Because school administrators serve in the highest

position of power in the school building, they have the broadest influence over the direction of

the school and, ultimately, its success or failure. Due to issues with recruitment, however,

districts nationwide are finding it difficult to locate, identify, and hire the kinds of administrators

who will lead their schools toward success.


School administrators are governed by broad national guidelines known as the ISLLC

standards, and Tennessee school administrators benefit from the guidance of the Tennessee

Instructional Leadership Standards. These standards place the responsibility for promoting the

success of every student at the feet of school administrators. They define the roles of the

educational leader, and those roles closely align with the roles identified by Marzano et al.

(2005) in their research on instructional leadership. Instructional leadership can be defined in

many ways, but the researchers identified 21 behaviors from studies examining the relationship

between school leaders and student achievement. Because most of these studies were at the

elementary level, high schools do not always mirror the results of these researchers.

Consequently, differences exist in how instructional leadership manifests at the secondary level.

Although school administrators are called to be instructional leaders, they are still in

leadership positions of power in which they are leading adult followers. Because this dynamic is

in play, other leadership theories beyond instructional leadership can still be present in school

leadership and play a role in the success or failure of a school.


Methodology

This research is qualitative in nature and uses triangulation of data to increase confidence

in the interpretation of the data derived from participants. Survey and interview data were

collected and analyzed to provide meaning about the perceptions of teachers, administrators, and

superintendents concerning the necessary qualities of effective instructional leaders.

Purpose

With the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top legislation, school accountability has

been thrust into the state and national spotlight with the focus on student achievement as reported

by standardized test scores. The literature supports the claim that school leaders have an

influence on student achievement through their instructional leadership functions, so it is more

important than ever to be able to identify the necessary qualities of those instructional leaders

who have shown themselves to be effective through student achievement and growth data. The

researchers in this study aimed to identify necessary qualities in order to enable those responsible

for hiring instructional leaders to recognize and identify strong candidates who will be successful

in their school placements.

Research Questions

In order to be thorough in the research of the topic, the research team developed

the following research questions:

1. How do superintendents, administrators, and teachers define instructional leadership?


The researchers focused on qualities because this term encompasses all of the different

aspects of the leaders themselves, including background and experiences.


Research Design

The research design of this study is a qualitative case study design. A case study is “a

type of qualitative investigation that involves the in-depth study of instances of a phenomenon in

its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon”

(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005, p. 545). In a case study, researchers seek to describe, explain, and/or

evaluate particular social phenomena. In this case study, the researchers studied interrelated

elements of high-performing high schools in Tennessee and sought to reveal necessary qualities

of an effective instructional leader. Instructional leaders engage in many behaviors and exhibit a

plethora of qualities, but the researchers were looking to uncover which of those qualities are

consistently present when student growth is high. The researchers gathered data using survey and

interview methods. The surveys generated the initial set of data and then the interviews were

conducted concurrently to clarify and expand upon survey responses.

Population and Participants

Population. Because the researchers were studying the qualities needed for effective

instructional leadership in high-performing Tennessee high schools, the population for the

research was all public Tennessee high schools, of which there were 362 at the time data were

collected. Within that population of schools, they surveyed and interviewed superintendents,

principals, assistant principals, and teachers associated with those schools.

Sample. The researchers used a purposive sample of level 5 schools in the state of

Tennessee. Reward schools served as one method of identifying level 5 schools in order to serve

as a filtering agent in regard to effectiveness. They identified all reward high schools in

Tennessee for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. They then divided the schools into

three categories: rural, urban, and suburban. Because the reward schools list did not produce a


sufficient sample that would transcend these three school contexts, the researchers expanded

their sample to include schools with a composite growth score of 5 for either the 2012-2013 or

2013-2014 schools and no lower than a composite value-added growth score of 4 for the other of

those two school years. For the questionnaires, the researchers sampled two schools from each

socioeconomic/geographical context—urban, suburban, and rural—and the participants were

comprised of the superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and teachers of those schools.

For the interviews, the researchers sampled one school from each socioeconomic/geographical

context—and the participants were comprised of principals, assistant principals, and teachers of

those schools. Table 1 shows the composite TVAAS scores for each of the measurement school

years as well as the size of school’s student population and percentage of those students who are

economically disadvantaged as measured by whether or not they receive free and/or reduced

lunch.

Table 1

Participant Schools Information

School TVAAS

2012-2013

TVAAS

2013-2014

Number of

Students

% Economically

Disadvantaged

Rural 1 5 5 741 71

Rural 2 5 5 450 56

Suburban 1 5 5 1971 17.7

Suburban 2 4 5 1432 27.7

Urban 1 5 5 1402 78.8

Urban 2 5 5 2282 63


Participants. Participants in this study were superintendents, principals, assistant

principals, and teachers in high-performing Tennessee high schools. The researchers solicited

survey participation from all teachers, administrators, and superintendents from each of the six

schools included in the sample. Table 2 shows the number of survey participants by school

context. There were a disproportionate number of participants from suburban schools due to

large student populations and high participation rates. While the rural schools had the second-

highest participation rates, they served fewer students and therefore had fewer teachers. The

urban schools had the lowest participation rates because although they had the highest combined

student populations, they had the fewest number of participants in each of the three categories.

Table 2

Number of Survey Participants by School Context and Role

School Context Teachers Administrators Superintendents

Rural 43 5 2

Suburban 115 7 1

Urban 42 4 0

The percentages of the participants categorized by gender is shown in Table 3. The table

shows that there were more females among the teacher participants than males, an equal

distribution among the administrator participants, and more male superintendent participants

than female.


Table 3

Percentages of Gender of Survey Participants by Role

Role Male Female

Teacher 64 136

Administrator 8 8

Superintendent 2 1

Table 4 shows the percentages of the highest levels of education completed by survey

participants. These data show that more than half of the teacher participants have achieved a

master’s degree or higher. The majority of administrators have achieved at least 30 more

graduate hours beyond master’s level, and a majority of the superintendent participants have

achieved a doctoral degree.

Table 4

Percentages of Highest Level of Education Completed by Survey Participants by Role

Role Bachelor’s Master’s Master’s +30 Doctorate

Teacher 42 (N = 84) 45.5 (N = 91) 10.5 (N =21) 2 (N = 4)

Administrator N/A 31.25 (N = 5) 62.5 (N = 10) 6.25 (N = 1)

Superintendent N/A N/A 33.3 (N = 1) 66.6 (N = 2)

The percentages of the participants categorized by years of teaching experience is

presented in Table 5. A majority of the teacher and administrator participants have taught for 15

years or less and all of the superintendent participants have taught for 15 or years or less.


Table 5

Percentages of Years of Teaching Experience of Survey Participants by Role

Role 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30

Teacher 26 (N = 52) 24.5 (N = 49) 19.5 (N = 39) 11 (N = 22) 11.5 (N = 23) 7.5 (N = 15)

Administrator 25 (N=4) 25 (N=4) 12.5 (N=2) 12.5 (N=2) 12.5 (N=2) 12.5 (N=2)

Superintendents 66.6 (N = 2) 33.3 (N = 1)

The percentages of the administrator and superintendent participants categorized by years

of school-level administrative experience is shown in Table 6. A majority of both the

administrator and superintendent participants have served 10 years or less in school-level

administration.

Table 6

Percentages of Years of Administration Experience of Survey Participants by Role

Role 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30

Teacher N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Administrator 43.75 (N = 7) 25 (N = 4) 25 (N = 4) 18.75 (N = 3) 12.5 (N = 2) N/A

Superintendents 33.3 (N = 1) 33.3 (N = 1) 33.3(N=1)

The researchers allowed the schools participating in the study to self-select their teacher

and administrator interview participants based on teacher effectiveness and administrator

willingness. Table 7 shows the number of interview participants by school context. There was a

disproportionate representation of suburban administrator participants.


Table 7

Number of Interview Participants by School Context

School Context Teachers Administrators

Rural 3 1

Suburban 3 4

Urban 2 1

Data Collection Procedures

The research team began by meeting with the Tennessee Organization of School

Superintendents, or TOSS. TOSS agreed to help aid in the research by providing the researchers

with access to school superintendents in the state of Tennessee and encouraging those

superintendents to participate in the study if their participation was solicited. Before interacting

with participants, the researchers submitted their proposal to both TOSS and to the Lipscomb

University IRB for approval. Once their research proposal was approved, they began collecting

data. The researchers first chose a purposive sample of high-performing high schools in the state

of Tennessee based on a combination of student growth data, geographic location, and

socioeconomic status. For each high school chosen, the researchers first obtained permission to

collect data within the district from the superintendent for each district in which the selected high

schools reside. The researchers then distributed and received informed consent from individual

participants (Appendix A).

Surveys. The researchers surveyed superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and

teachers to elicit responses that would indicate the qualities of the school leaders (Appendices B-


D). TOSS made initial contact with the superintendents on behalf of the researchers in order to

incentivize participation. The researchers then made direct contact with each superintendent to

obtain permission to collect data within the district and to solicit completion of the

superintendent questionnaire. Once permission had been obtained, the researchers contacted the

executive principal of each school to schedule a time to present the purpose of the research and

to encourage participation in the survey. Immediately following this presentation, the executive

principals gave the teachers and administrators time to respond to the questionnaires. When a

face-to-face meeting was not possible, executive principals sent a link to the online survey to

their teachers and administrators through email and encouraged them to participate.

Survey study data were collected and managed using Harris et al.’s (2009) REDCap

electronic data capture tools hosted at Lipscomb University. REDCap (Research Electronic Data

Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies,

providing 1) an intuitive interface for validated data entry; 2) audit trails for tracking data

manipulation and export procedures; 3) automated export procedures for seamless data

downloads to common statistical packages; and 4) procedures for importing data from external

sources.

Interviews. Based on their survey responses, the researchers developed interview

questions to clarify and expand upon the data collected through the surveys. They then

interviewed individual school-level participants to gather more descriptive and specific data

concerning how instructional leaders have affected the school and to determine whether or not

there were measurable results. The researchers conducted interviews of teacher and administrator

participants to ask specific follow-up questions in order to gain a better understanding of

potential intervening elements that may have contributed to the success of individual teachers,


principals, and their schools. The researchers interviewed teachers who were identified by their

administrators as being highly effective. The researchers interviewed administrators based on

their willingness to participate.

One or more of the researchers conducted each interview, and all interviews for each

school were conducted in one visit to that school on one day. At the beginning of each interview,

the researchers obtained signed consent from each participant for both participation in the study

and consent to have the interview recorded in a digital audio file. At the end of the interview,

each participant was given a Starbucks gift card in the amount of 10 dollars to thank them for

taking time out of their days to interview.

The researchers then used the audio recordings to transcribe the interviews for coding.

Once the interviews were transcribed, the researchers deleted the audio files so as to protect the

anonymity of the interview participants.

Instrumentation

The researchers developed their own questionnaires based on their conceptual framework

for measuring participants’ perceptions through surveys. The questionnaires included closed-

ended demographic questions and open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were

designed to elicit qualitative data concerning the ways in which school leaders have been

successful and how they have directly helped teachers to grow personally and professionally.

The research team submitted the instruments to the Juried Review Committee to receive

feedback and suggestions before pilot-testing the instruments.

Pilot Testing

The researchers pilot-tested all three instruments in two different school districts in

schools that were not selected to participate in the study. The researchers pilot-tested the teacher


questionnaire (Appendix D) at a school that met the criteria of being a level 5 school for growth

for both the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. They pilot-tested the administrator

questionnaire (Appendix C) at this same school. Because this school was in the same district as

schools that would be used later for data collection, the researchers did not pilot-test the

superintendent questionnaire (Appendix B) with the superintendent over that school because the

superintendent would be asked to complete the questionnaire later on in data collection.

Consequently, they pilot-tested the superintendent questionnaire in another district in which no

schools would be included in the study.

The researchers followed their initial methodology, which included requesting permission

from the superintendent through an email sent by the TOSS director. Once permission to conduct

surveys within the district was obtained, they sent an email containing the administrator and

teacher questionnaire online survey links to the executive principal. The executive principal then

sent the links out to the appropriate faculty members. Thirteen teachers and two administrators

completed the questionnaires.

Feedback. Each questionnaire contained one extra open-ended question whereby

participants could provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the questionnaire. Through

this solicited feedback, the teacher participants expressed that they felt the survey was an

effective survey. Two participants gave suggestions for the teacher survey. As a result of these

suggestions, the researchers added a prompt to question number 3 of the teacher questionnaire

(Appendix D) that afforded teachers the opportunity to clarify or expound on the adjectives they

provided.

Only one administrator participant made a suggestion, and it was to make the survey

anonymous. Although the survey was predicated on the idea that all of the administrators in the


building are effective, the requirement of providing a name made the participant nervous. To

satisfy this concern, the researchers kept the name field but made providing a name optional

instead of required. The researchers did this so that they would still be able to link the responses

of administrators who do feel comfortable providing their names with teachers who had cited the

administrators by name in their own responses. The participants also received feedback from

administrator participants that the length of time needed to take the survey was reasonable, so

they did not remove any questions.

The superintendent participant made several suggestions to improve the effectiveness of

the questionnaire (Appendix B). The participant suggested that the researchers should provide

direction as to the length of the expected responses in order to give cues to the participant about

how detailed the responses should be. The participant also expressed that the length of the survey

and the level of detail requested were too onerous for superintendents. As a result, the

researchers added directions for participants to provide their responses in one to three brief

sentences. Additionally, the researchers eliminated questions based on the appropriateness and

relevance of the responses.

Responses. The researchers analyzed the responses provided by the participants of the

pilot study in order to determine whether or not the questions elicited an adequate range of

responses, that the questions were answered in the way in which the researchers had expected,

and to determine whether or not the researchers were able to interpret the responses within the

context of the question and the desired data that had necessitated the question’s existence. In the

teacher survey, all of the responses provided by participants were contextually appropriate and

unique to each question. No data were repeated in multiple questions within the same context.


In the administrator survey (Appendix C), all of the responses provided by the

participants were contextually appropriate and provided the expected data. However, one

participant referenced a previous question in response to a latter question. When asked the

question what are the most important things you do to improve instruction, the participant noted

that the researchers should refer to how the participant had answered question 7, which was what

opportunities do you have in your current role to participate in instructional leadership

activities. The researchers had intended for the question about the most important things to be a

value question that would prompt the participant to make a value judgment and prioritize the

different tasks he or she considered to be essential to instructional leadership. However, because

it allowed more than one response, the participant did not see it as a different question from the

question about opportunities. As a result, the researchers changed the question to what is the

single most important thing you do to improve instruction so that the participants would know

that they are being asked to make a value judgment of the items provided in their answer to the

earlier question concerning the opportunities they have in their current role.

In the superintendent survey (Appendix B), some of the responses overlapped with

responses to earlier questions. Consequently, the researchers eliminated several redundant

questions.

Methodology. Because the pilot study did not yield a high participation rate, the

researchers chose to alter their method of conducting the survey study. For the pilot study, the

researchers made contact with all parties through email. There was no face-to-face

communication between the researchers and the superintendents, administrators, or teachers.

With electronic communication, there is a hope that participants are reading all of the

explanatory materials and directions, but there is no guarantee. Consequently, the researchers


modified their data collection procedures to include a face-to-face explanation of the research

during an already existing mandatory meeting held at each individual school, such as an after-

school faculty meeting. The researchers resolved to have TOSS make initial contact with the

superintendent to explain who the researchers were and why they were conducting research and

to let each superintendent know that the researchers would be contacting him or her directly.

Once TOSS had received affirmation from the superintendent, the researchers would then

contact the superintendent directly to schedule data collection with the superintendent and to ask

permission to collect data in the school or schools under the superintendent’s jurisdiction. Once

permission was received, the researchers would contact the executive principal directly and

schedule a time to explain the study to participants and to solicit responses.

Data Analysis

Each member of the research team analyzed each data set independently. Once each

member had completed his or her analysis of a data set, they were shared, compared, combined,

and refined. Once this process had been accomplished for each data set, the final analyses were

compared and contrasted in order to triangulate the conclusions across researchers. In order to

triangulate the findings across data collection methods, the researchers analyzed the data

collected from each individual method separately and then compared and contrasted the data to

combine and refine their results.

Questionnaire analysis. All responses to the questionnaire were auto-populated into a

spreadsheet accessible by each researcher. Responses were coded and categorized to construct

themes. This initial analysis was done three times, once by each researcher, and the results were

shared with the research team. This initial round of coding and categorizing was further


analyzed and discussed by the research team, which led to the first identified set of desirable

qualities.

Interview analysis. All interviews were first transcribed. The researchers for each

interview as well as for the questionnaires followed the same analysis protocol: independent

analysis, group analysis, refinement, and construction of perceptions. In the analysis process, the

interview transcripts were coded and categorized first by interview question and then the codes

and categories of each individual question were grouped together by which research question the

data answer. Once each interview had been through the process they were further analyzed by

comparing the sets of perceptions to each other and a shared set of perceptions was constructed

from the interview data.

Cumulative analysis – school context level. Once thematic saturation was reached with

each data set (survey and interview), the survey data were grouped by the individual school

context being studied. The researchers compared and contrasted the results of the three

corresponding levels of surveys—teacher, administrator, and superintendent—and the results of

any interviews conducted with faculty members of an individual school from that context. The

results were then combined and refined to reveal the qualities that had contributed to or impeded

success within that individual school.

Cumulative analysis – all school contexts. Once triangulation of data had occurred

within each school setting and theoretical saturation was reached, the combined and refined

survey and interview data were compared and contrasted with the combined and refined results

from the other two school contexts to be combined and refined to reveal the necessary qualities

of effective instructional leaders that transcend individual school contexts.


Disposition of the Data

The researchers kept the research results, which were all digital, in password-protected

files where only the researchers and their advisor had access to the records while they worked on

the research. They finished analyzing the data on July 1, 2015. The researchers then destroyed all

original reports and identifying information that could potentially be linked back to participants.

All audio records have been secured under lock by one of the researchers. They will have been

erased or destroyed upon successful completion of this research. The tentative completion date is

December 2015.


Findings

Introduction

Organizational structure of the findings. Several themes emerged throughout the

responses to the questionnaires and during the interviews and, unless specified, the reported

themes were present in the data collected from all three contexts: urban, suburban, and rural.

Because the responses were derived from the perceptions of participants in different roles

(teachers, administrators, and superintendents), the researchers further delineated the responses

by the participant’s role. The themes were organized first by their contextual relevance to the

research questions and then categorized by whether or not they can be considered a trait—both

heritable and developed—or be considered a behavior in which an instructional leader regularly

engages. Within these categories the traits and behaviors were grouped by common themes,

which had emerged through the data analysis process.

Definition of Instructional Leadership (Research Question 1)

In the first research question, the researchers sought to determine a cohesive definition of

instructional leadership as perceived by high-school teachers and administrators and

superintendents in the state of Tennessee. The themes emerged from the participants’ responses

to a direct question asking them how they define instructional leadership (Appendices B, C, &

D). The researchers then narrowed the lists of themes by which of them were present in the

responses of participants from all three school contexts.

How teachers define instructional leadership. When asked to define instructional

leadership, teachers gave a variety of responses. Several respondents gave overarching

definitions, which defined instructional leadership in terms of outcomes such as one respondent


who wrote, “Instructional leadership is a critical aspect of school leadership. The work of

instructional leaders is to ensure that every student receives the highest quality instruction each

day.” While a definition such as this would serve to give clarity of purpose to instructional

leaders, it does not have practical value in identifying what instructional leaders actually do in

order to achieve those outcomes. Fortunately, a majority of teachers supplied responses in terms

of behaviors in which administrators engage that teachers feel demonstrate instructional

leadership. Although teachers supplied many more behaviors, 13 behaviors were present in the

responses of teachers from all three school contexts: coaching, modeling, providing support,

providing resources, analyzing and using data, providing collaboration time, influencing school

culture, maintaining student discipline, setting high expectations, being actively involved,

monitoring student progress, motivating the faculty, and providing professional development

opportunities. Five of those 13 behaviors occurred with high frequency: coaching, modeling,

providing support, providing resources, and analyzing and using data.

Coaching. The teacher respondents expect instructional leaders to coach them in their

teaching. Coaching was present in the responses with the highest frequency either directly using

the term coaching or by citing major components together. The researchers identified three major

components of coaching by recognizing patterns of cited knowledge, skills, and behaviors which

were presented as interdependent: knowledge of strategies and best practices, observation of

teachers teaching, and a provision of feedback following those observations.

Teachers expect instructional leaders to be knowledgeable of teaching and classroom

management strategies that are considered to be best practices and when and how to incorporate

those best practices into the classroom. When asked to define instructional leadership, one

respondent wrote, “Instructional leadership is described as being able to teach teachers how to


improve their craft by giving them a variety of strategies to use in the classroom.” In a similar

response, a respondent stated, “Instructional leadership is a person in charge of developing

teachers and providing them with all the tools necessary to adapt and improve teaching

techniques and strategies.” Another respondent emphasized the need for instructional leaders to

be able to transfer their knowledge of best practices to different classroom circumstances and

student demographics:

I define instructional leadership as assistance dealing with instruction, any aspect therein,

from classroom management to how best practices can be incorporated in the classroom.

Most important would be the ability to know how to take the ‘good ideas’ we find from

most practices and apply them to students we serve where we serve them, as most ‘good

ideas’ are presented in an ideal classroom.

This response acknowledges that knowledge of best practices is only sufficient if that knowledge

is accompanied by the understanding that strategies do not come with a one-size-fits-all

implementation model.

In order for instructional leaders to coach teachers toward perfecting their craft, those

leaders must observe teachers and provide feedback. The following response draws attention to

the skills needed in order to coach teachers through observation and feedback: “Instructional

leadership is the process of observing, analyzing, equipping, and directing teachers to achieve the

highest attainable levels of learning for each student.” One respondent emphasized the

importance of feedback being non-threatening and given with the express purpose of helping the

teacher improve his or her craft: “A principal should offer suggestions without condemning the

teacher. They should help the teacher grow and progress.”


Several responses demonstrate the interdependence of the three behaviors that make up

coaching. In one such response, the teacher said, “To me, instructional leadership means that my

administrators can provide feedback to help improve my teaching practices. They should be able

to watch me teach and give me suggestions to improve.” In essence, teachers feel that

instructional leaders must have the willingness to observe and the knowledge of best practices in

order to provide feedback that will help teachers improve.

Modeling. After coaching, modeling was the second most frequently occurring definition

of instructional leadership. While many respondents gave short, succinct responses indicating the

importance that instructional leaders should “lead by example” or “be a guide and a model for

effective teaching,” others were very specific in exactly the kind of modeling they believe pays

dividends in teacher and student success:

Leadership is modeling. Leaders model the behavior they want. They model the type of

teaching they are looking for in faculty meetings. They model the way they want the

teachers to interact with the students in the way they interact with their teachers. They

treat their teachers like they want their teachers to treat the students-- with respect,

understanding, patience, ebb and flow, constructive criticism, high expectations but room

for error, confidence, and gratefulness. They stay at the school working until the job is

done. Just their presence at the school speaks volumes of the expectations for each

employee.

Included in these responses is the view of modeling as the way of setting high

expectations through demonstration of a willingness on the part of the leader to put in as much or

more work. Another respondent overtly stated exactly that:


I believe that with any leader, they should lead from the front. Effective leaders are

willing to do any task they ask of their staff. They are willing to work long and hard on

new initiatives and commit to being visible after hours when their staff is working. An

effective leader models what they expect and sets a high standard that others want to

emulate.

Essentially, teachers expect that instructional leaders will model principles of good

teaching, appropriate ways of interacting with subordinates, and the level of commitment

necessary to have the greatest positive impact on student growth and achievement.

In addition to modeling expectations, several teachers expressed an interest in seeing

leaders model teaching strategies in the classroom. One teacher said, “They need to be able to

demonstrate what the strategies should look like in the classroom.” Another teacher requested

similar practices with an expression of genuine interest: “Instructional leadership could be

incorporated in modeling effective practices. I would love to have the chance to watch effective

leaders in a classroom.” Teachers feel that a component of instructional leadership is the ability

to model effective teaching practices not only in faculty meetings and other adult learning

situations but also in the actual high school classroom.

Support. Teachers want to feel supported, but they define support differently. Some use

the term support as an all-inclusive term, referring to any kind of support that meets the needs of

the teachers so that the teachers can be their best. One teacher described instructional leadership

as “administrative support in curriculum planning, instruction, and assessment through

professional development and coaching.” Other teachers also cited professional development as a

significant aspect of instructional leadership support. One such teacher said, “Instructional

leadership is defined as positive practices that support a teacher during daily classroom


instruction. This leadership can contain many different facets. One of these is support through

meaningful professional development opportunities.”

Other teachers referred to material support in addition to support for teachers’

professional growth. One teacher defined instructional leadership as a “principal who is

concerned about his/her teachers and provides ways for the teacher to improve in his/her

discipline with support and materials.” Another teacher expressed the importance of material

support very straightforwardly: “Financial support is very important, as well as the support for

scheduling appropriately.”

Another common theme appeared throughout the responses of those teachers who

referenced support when defining instructional leadership; instructional leaders should serve in a

supporting role to teachers, using their knowledge and expertise to help guide teachers when they

need it. One teacher said, “Instructional leadership is when an individual of influence has an

intimate knowledge of what it takes to teach students in an ever changing world and supports the

teachers to meet his or her needs as well as the needs of the students.” Another teacher said,

“Support in every way is the definition of instructional leadership. In order to support there must

also be an understanding of the subject matter being taught.” Teachers want instructional leaders

to be knowledgeable so that when teachers have a problem, they may seek out advice and

guidance from the leaders.

Due to this desire for leaders to be a supplemental, supporting resource, they develop a

hands-off, reactive mentality rather than one where they proactively involve themselves. Some

teachers subtly referred to this backseat role, such as one teacher who defined instructional

leadership as “providing guidance to those who need it and being there for all teachers whether

they are in their first year or 30th year.” Other teachers also referenced this guiding role by


defining instructional leadership as support that includes guidance and encouragement. Those

who expressly stated the need for a backseat, supportive role did so while emphasizing the

expertise of the teacher and need for the teacher’s autonomy as a content-area specialist to be

respected. One such respondent said instructional leadership “protects and supports teaching and

learning in the classroom. It leans on the professionalism of the teacher and embraces her

creativity and growth.” Another teacher emphasized the need for instructional leaders to take a

hands-off approach:

I think the most important thing for the leader is to be there when you need them but not

to be constantly micromanaging everything you do and to understand every teacher has

their own approach to making sure the content is taught, but then when you need them,

they are there and have your back.

Many teachers do not want instructional leaders constantly telling them how to do their job, but

they do want to know that if they have questions and need support those instructional leaders will

be able to help them do what needs to be done.

Resources. Another frequently occurring theme that emerged within the teachers’

definitions of instructional leadership is the need for instructional leaders to be good at procuring

necessary resources. One teacher said that an important component of instructional leadership is

“making sure resources are available to teachers to enhance their teaching potential.” Another

clearly stated that instructional leadership “is putting resources in your hand that will help with

classroom management, instructional strategies, or content.” Teachers want instructional leaders

who will provide them with the resources they need to be successful, regardless of whether those

resources are physical resources or intellectual resources.


Data analysis and use. Teachers want instructional leaders to know how to access,

interpret, and use data to drive student achievement and growth. One respondent said, “An admin

who exhibits instructional leadership is able to use factual data to recognize academic strengths

and needs within a population.” Another respondent emphasized the need for continued data use

to drive instruction: “An instructional leader shares pertinent data to teachers that allows us to

streamline instruction. He/she supports and works right along with us to improve student

learning.” Teachers want instructional leaders to be able to use data in a practical way that will

help support teachers in their efforts to increase student achievement.

How administrators define instructional leadership. Like the teacher respondents,

administrators also provided a variety of responses. Two of those responses transcended school

context to appear in responses from participants from rural, suburban, and urban high schools:

coaching and modeling.

Coaching. Administrators also defined instructional leadership in terms of a leader’s

ability to coach teachers for improved effectiveness. Administrators believe that instructional

leaders must have the ability to know and recognize good instructional strategies and best

practices and be able to help teachers to implement those strategies effectively. One

administrator said:

Instructional leadership is being able to talk a teacher through the planning phase of any

lesson so that all of the facets of the lesson will build together to produce learning from

all students. Being able to give examples of options for areas in which the teacher may be

struggling is imperative.

Another administrator emphasized the importance of both observation and feedback:

“Instructional leaders are those who can observe a classroom setting and provide action steps or


new strategies to coach or motivate the teacher to a higher level of performance or connectivity

to their students.” One administrator demonstrated a need for instructional leaders to provide

targeted feedback by defining instructional leadership as “holding conversations with staff about

instruction and ways to improve it that is very specific in its actions.” Like teachers,

administrators agree that instructional leaders use their expertise to coach teachers through

observation and feedback.

Modeling. Administrators also defined instructional leadership as modeling. Like

teachers, they included “modeling effective instruction in interactions with others,” as well as

“being able to know and demonstrate the most effective strategies of teaching lesson.”

Administrators also noted that this modeling occurs before both faculty and students by defining

instructional leadership as “modeling positive instruction in all we do, whether it be during a

faculty meeting or in a classroom modeling strategies that are effective for learning.”

How superintendents define instructional leadership. All of the superintendents who

were surveyed defined instructional leadership in slightly different terms, but they all

emphasized the importance that the leader’s primary focus is on teaching and learning. One

superintendent described an instructional leader as one who has a “laser-like focus on student

performance” and has “a range of skills and attributes growing students and teachers.” Another

superintendent wholly defined an instructional leader as one whose “primary focus is teaching

and learning.” The third superintendent said that an instructional leader has “to be able to provide

support for every teacher in the building so they can grow and get better.” Although these

definitions do not indicate specific daily behaviors of instructional leaders, they do define an

instructional leader by his or her attitude and values, specifically a desire to improve teacher

instruction throughout the building.


Confluence of definitions of instructional leadership among teachers, principals, and

superintendents. Because there are so many more teachers in a school than there are principals

and superintendents, the number of teacher responses far exceeds the number of responses

generated by principals and superintendents in a case study design. As a result, the teachers

generated more transcendent themes than both the administrators and superintendents, and the

administrators generated more transcendent themes than the superintendents. Figure 1 shows the

incidence of every transcendent theme across all participant roles: teacher, administrator, and

superintendent.

Figure 1

Themes Teachers Administrators Superintendents Coaching � � Modeling � � Providing Support � Providing Resources � Analyzing and Using Data � Providing Collaboration Time � Influencing School Culture � Maintaining Student Discipline � Setting High Expectations � Being Actively Involved � Monitoring Student Progress � Motivating the Faculty � Providing PD � Focusing on Teaching & Learning � Figure 1. Presence of themes within the teacher, administrator, and superintendent participants’ responses to how they define instructional leadership


Traits Exhibited by Effective Instructional Leaders (Research Question 2)

Teachers’ perception of the traits exhibited by their administrators. The six schools

included in the case study produced 200 teacher responses. Those teachers were asked to think of

the administrator in their building who best exemplified their definition of an instructional leader

and provide three adjectives to describe that individual. The respondents generated 70 different

traits across the six schools. Of those 70 traits, 24 were present in data from respondents from all

three school contexts: supportive, dedicated/driven, knowledgeable, caring,

available/approachable/listener, active/energetic, positive, understanding, honest, fair,

consistent, hard-working, professional, organized, communicator, personable, resourceful,

research-driven, flexible, has integrity, open-minded, patient, resourceful, and attentive. Because

the traits were generated by the respondents and not supplied by the researchers, the responses

were not limited in any way. Consequently, the frequency of any one trait is not higher than

23%. However, the researchers recognized that the traits could be further categorized by the

attitudes and values implicit in the traits. The combined number of responses for traits falling

within any given category more accurately shows the attitudes and values teachers appreciated

the most when exhibited by their administrators.

Traits implying a personal level of care and concern for faculty. Five of the most

frequently occurring traits indicated that teachers appreciate when administrators show care and

concern for them as individuals, both personally and professionally. The five traits in this

category are supportive, caring, understanding, available/approachable/listener, and personable.

With 46 instances, supportive was the trait that showed up the most among the responses. The

third-most cited trait overall, caring, also falls into this category. When the instances of all five

of these traits are combined, this category far exceeds the other three categories with 136 total


occurrences. These five traits indicate that teachers place a tremendous amount of value in

knowing that their administrators will listen to them and support them without negativity and

judgment.

Traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior. The category with the

second-highest total number of occurrences included traits that describe how administrators

conduct themselves, especially when it comes to interaction with others. The five traits within

this category—positive, fair, honest, consistent, and professional, in that order—combine for a

total of 84 occurrences. These traits indicate that teachers value administrators who will interact

with teachers without bias and without letting circumstances affect how they conduct

themselves.

Traits implying a level of commitment to the work. Three frequently occurring traits

show that teachers appreciate it when they can see that their administrators are committed to the

work being done in the school. Teachers appreciate administrators who are dedicated/driven,

active/energetic, and hard-working. These three traits combined account for 63 instances, with

dedicated/driven and active/energetic both tying for the fourth-most frequently occurring trait.

These traits indicate that teachers value administrators who are willing to put in the work

necessary for a school to be run effectively.

Traits implying efficiency of execution. Three frequently occurring traits demonstrate

that teachers appreciate administrators who have knowledge and skills that make them more

effective and efficient in their job functions. Teachers want to serve under administrators who

are knowledgeable, good communicators, and organized. These three traits combined total 53

occurrences, with knowledgeable being the second-most frequently occurring response. These

traits indicate that teachers value competent administrators.


Administrators’ perception of their own traits. The six schools included in this study

produced 16 administrator respondents. When asked to both provide adjectives and traits, those

16 respondents generated 57 different traits that they perceived to be the traits that made them

most effective as instructional leaders. Of those 57 traits, only four of them showed up in

responses of administrators representing all three school contexts: honest/transparent,

energetic/passionate, caring, and organized. These four traits each fit into a different trait

category. Honest/transparent fits into the category of traits that imply a dedication to ethical

behavior. Energetic/passionate fits into the category of traits that imply commitment to the work.

Caring fits into the category of traits that imply a personal level of care and concern for the

faculty and students. Organized fits into the category of traits that implies possession of the skills

necessary for an efficiency of execution of job-related tasks. In addition to the four traits present

in all three school contexts, the following five traits showed up in responses from administrators

representing two school contexts: communicator, fair, firm, forward-thinking, and listener.

Superintendents’ perception of the traits administrators should exhibit. The three

superintendent respondents represented two school contexts: suburban and rural. The three

superintendents generated 14 different traits in their responses: listener, personable, empathetic,

understanding, kind, humble, trustworthy, motivated, driven/focused, energetic, organized,

communicator, innovative, and confident. The willingness and ability to listen was the only trait

that showed up more than once among the three respondents, and it was presented once each in

the two school contexts represented by the respondents.

Confluence of perceptions of teachers, administrators, and superintendents

concerning traits exhibited by instructional leaders. The disproportionate number of

responses among the three roles once again resulted in a disproportionate number of transcendent


traits. Figure 2 shows the confluence of all of the transcendent traits among the three roles of the

participants: teachers, administrators, and superintendents. The data show that both teachers and

administrators value traits in the four categories.

Figure 2

Traits Teachers Administrators Superintendents

Traits implying care and concern for the faculty and staff

Caring � � Available/Listener � � Supportive � Understanding � Personable � Traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior

Honest/transparent � � Positive � Fair � Consistent � Professional � Traits implying a level of commitment to the work

Active/energetic/passionate � � Dedicated/driven � Hard-working � Traits implying efficiency of execution

Organized � � Knowledgeable � Good communicator � Figure 2. The confluence of transcendent traits among the responses from teachers, administrators, and superintendents.


Behaviors Exhibited by Effective Instructional Leaders (Research Question 2)

Introduction to teacher perception of administrator behaviors. The researchers

identified which behaviors teachers perceive to be the most effective for instructional leadership

through questions 3 through 6 on the teacher questionnaire (Appendix D). Teachers were asked

to identify the roles of assistant principals and executive principals in instructional leadership,

explain how administrators help them to improve their instruction, and provide a specific

example of a time when an administrator demonstrated instructional leadership that helped them

to improve their instruction. The 200 respondents generated 45 different instructional leadership

behaviors. Of those 45 behaviors, 17 behaviors appeared in the responses of teachers from all

three school contexts.

The researchers then further categorized the behaviors as intellectual, material, or

emotional. Intellectual behaviors are behaviors in which administrators may effectively engage

because they possess task-specific knowledge or intellectual skills and abilities; intellectual

behaviors, therefore, provide teachers with knowledge or help them to acquire skills. Material

behaviors are behaviors that provide teachers with something that is tangible and measurable.

Emotional behaviors are those that affect teacher morale or influence their feeling about the work

that they do or the school in which they do it. The researchers then grouped these behaviors by

whether or not the teachers indicated they were behaviors in which all administrators engaged, in

which assistant principals primarily engaged, or in which executive principals primarily engaged.

Teacher perception of behaviors of all administrators. While all 17 of the behaviors

teachers perceived to be associated with instructional leadership were attributed to

administrators, eight of those behaviors appeared in responses describing the behaviors of both

assistant principals and executive principals with similar frequency or a higher number of


instances attributed to assistant principals: conduct classroom observations and provide feedback

(coaching), give advice/provide strategies, analyze data, provide material support, provide

emotional support, provide collaboration time, lead professional development or provide access

to it, and provide resources. Four behaviors were attributed to both assistant and executive

principals but were attributed to executive principals with a significantly higher frequency: is

open/available, influences culture, encourages, and sets high expectations. Two behaviors were

only attributed to assistant principals: discipline and possesses knowledge of curriculum and

instruction. Three behaviors were attributed only to executive principals: innovates, listens, and

recognizes.

Intellectual behaviors. The teacher responses yielded three intellectual behaviors in

which all instructional leaders engage, regardless of their specific role: conduct frequent

observations and provide feedback (coaching), give advice/provide strategies, and analyze data.

Conducting observations and providing feedback (coaching). Providing feedback was the

highest occurring response with 181 instances throughout responses to the four questions used to

measure behavior. Twice as many respondents attributed providing feedback to assistant

principals as to executive principals, but it was still the second-highest behavior attributed

specifically to executive principals, second only to setting high expectations. Although most

respondents only provided non-descriptive responses such as “provide me with feedback,”

several respondents went into great detail about the frequency of the feedback and the

circumstances surrounding the observations generating that feedback.

All of the respondents who went into detail concerning those circumstances emphasized

the importance that the feedback be non-threatening. One teacher said:


I would get daily emails from my AP letting me know what she saw that day in my class

that demonstrated best practice, so when she needed to discuss something I need to

improve upon, I was completely receptive and open-minded and willing to do what it

took to improve.

Two other teacher respondents juxtaposed summative evaluative feedback with the frequent

feedback they have found to be so helpful. One respondent explained the similarities and

differences:

I feel, for the first time, that the evaluation process is used as a tool for self-improvement

instead of a punitive tool. I am being evaluated every day by my AP and I get daily

feedback of what I am doing well and what I can improve upon. The evaluation then is

just the summative evaluation among many throughout the year.

The other respondent differentiated between the informality of the frequent feedback in

comparison to the formal, evaluative nature of the state of Tennessee’s TEAM evaluation

system:

They provide feedback on what is working well and what isn’t working well. They don’t

rely 100% on TEAM evaluations but actually spend additional time in the classroom

giving us feedback we can work with, not just a number score.

These responses indicate that teachers do not only want feedback; they want feedback that is

frequent, timely, and non-evaluative.

In order for instructional leaders to provide feedback, they must observe teachers

teaching. Consequently, teachers also noted the frequency of observations alongside and in

addition to noting the frequency of feedback. Because feedback implies observations occurred,

teachers only expressly mentioned observations a total of 42 times across the responses. In these


responses, teachers either stressed the frequency of the observations or the value of the resulting

feedback. Some teachers only mentioned the frequency, such as one respondent who simply

stated, “[Assistant principals] are frequently in the classroom.” Others mentioned both the

frequency and the accompanying feedback: “My AP is in my classroom a minimum of once a

week and provides ideas on how to engage students more” and “My immediate AP shows up in

my class at least twice a week. She pays attention to what’s going on and will later make

suggestions on what I could try to make certain aspects of my lesson work better.”

One respondent even gave details concerning the intentionality behind the frequent

observations and accompanying feedback:

The administrators started a coaching initiative where they visit the classrooms at least

once a week. They observe teaching and then give us feedback. They never come in the

same class period, so they can see how we’re doing. Each week, I get an email saying

what she observed as a reminder. But normally, we talk about it before she sends the

reminder email. The coaching has been super helpful to me!”

Teachers appreciate administrators who are willing to coach them through frequent observations

and specific feedback.

Give advice/provide strategies. Giving advice/providing strategies was mentioned 162

times by the teacher respondents on the questionnaire. It was the second most frequently

occurring instructional leadership behavior, and it too was attributed more to assistant principals

than to the executive principal. Of those 162 instances, providing strategies was mentioned 32

times in response to the question of how administrators help teachers improve their instruction

and was mentioned 70 times when teachers were asked to cite a specific example of a time when


an administrator helped them to improve their instruction, which was the most frequently

occurring response to that particular question.

Teachers mentioned advice and strategies in several different ways. Some teachers

expressed appreciation for how administrators will provide general strategies to whole faculty:

“The leaders provide new strategies in writing, during workshops and monthly meetings, where I

have the opportunity to pick and choose what I would like to implement and try during lessons.”

Others attributed their improvement in instruction to specific strategies given to them in response

to observations and feedback: “After an observation, I was given examples of how to hold

students individually responsible while doing a group project.” Still others expressed an

appreciation for the willingness to take time to give specific, targeted advice and strategies:

I have one block of students that have a very hard time following directions and being

respectful. My other classes do not have these issues. I had each of the principals come in

on different days with different activities planned to sit back and watch my classroom.

They then offered suggestions to help me. I have implemented many of them to success,

and others to trial and error. But their willingness to use their time to just sit and take

notes to help me was very amazing.

Teachers appreciate it when instructional leaders provide them with strategies in both the general

setting and as solutions to individual needs.

Analyze data. Respondents indicated that providing them with data and/or helping them

to analyze and use data is a role that both assistant principals and executive principals play in

instructional leadership. Data was mentioned 27 times in response to the questions concerning

administrative roles in instructional leadership. Most respondents responded with only one- or

two-word responses such as providing only the word data or a phrase such as data analysis.


However, one teacher detailed how an administrator’s understanding of and willingness to

explain data impacted that teacher in the classroom: “The assistant principal helped me to use

testing data to discover my students’ strengths and weaknesses. They also helped me to better

understand how to do ongoing assessment for a performance-based class.”

Another teacher brought up how administrators used data with the students and helped

them to improve: “We did data talks where they would take the students with their Algebra

scores and the English scores and talk to them. Those talks helped a lot of kids.”

When interviewed, teacher participants from one school in particular explained how their

administrators use data to determine whether or not their students are making sustained growth.

Students who are not making sustained growth are then provided after-school tutoring and extra

help to get them back on track.

Although data were used differently among different schools included in the study, it was

a common theme among responses from schools in all three school contexts.

Material behaviors. The responses yielded four material behaviors in which all

administrators engaged, regardless of their particular role as either an assistant principal or an

executive principal: provide collaboration time, lead or provide access to professional

development, provide resources, and provide support.

Provide collaboration time. Teachers find great benefit in collaborating with other

teachers and appreciate it when administrators designate time for this collaboration to occur.

Collaboration was mentioned 31 times, and in these responses the teacher respondents mentioned

several different methods of collaboration as being personally helpful to them in their teaching.

Some teachers mentioned that their administrators had provided them with time during the

school day to collaborate with other teachers in the building: “The administrators have scheduled


in collaboration time during the school day two times each month. This has allowed me to plan

with and gather ideas from my colleagues, which has enhanced my instruction greatly.” Another

teacher explained that an administrator gave him or her “time off to observe other teachers to

learn from their teaching strategies, best practices, and classroom instruction methods.”

Responses from other teachers showed that some administrators have used collaboration

time to help provide teachers with content-area support. One respondent shared, “He has assisted

me with giving teachers a time to collaborate within their own curriculum areas.” Teachers also

appreciated assistance with collaboration even when the content-area support was not necessarily

built into the school day: “The principals have purposely put me in contact with other teachers in

my subject area (via collaborative planning, classroom placement, etc.) to provide support.”

Teachers also indicated that their administrators have extended collaboration beyond the

walls of the school building. One teacher explained such an initiative:

Most recently they have provided opportunities for us to expand our knowledge by

visiting other classrooms within our school and throughout the district. This collaboration

has been so important to me and has guided me to make a few changes to improve my

teaching and classroom management.

Some administrators have extended collaboration even beyond the boundaries of the district: “He

is flexible to allow teachers to spend time away from their building-level duties to collaborate

with other teachers in other districts.” From observing other teachers to common planning,

teachers feel that collaboration has a positive impact on their teaching, and they want

administrators to provide them with time and access to such collaboration.

Lead or provide access to professional development. Professional development was

mentioned 42 times in reference to ways in which administrators help teachers improve their


instruction. Teachers who cited professional development did so in two contexts: administrators

leading professional development and administrators providing access to professional

development. In one such example of administrators leading professional development, a teacher

respondent said administrators serve as instructional leaders by “leading professional

development and as a one-on-one mentor when needed.” Another teacher said:

One of the assistant principals made a presentation on questioning during a faculty

meeting. After the meeting, she emailed multiple resources that further explained her

presentation and provided multiple examples of good questioning. It was helpful to see so

many different types of good questioning.

In addition to leading professional development, or PD, they also seek out and send

teachers to professional development sessions, demonstrated by one teacher who, in response to

an interview question asking how the administrators have contributed her success, explained that

the principal “looks for opportunities for us to go to professional development,” then she added,

“I think they always want us to be prepared, and they keep an eye out for up and coming, and

they send us emails letting us know about it that say ‘here’s a session if you’re interested.’”

Teachers feel that it benefits them when administrators take the time to make themselves aware

of professional development opportunities, make the teachers aware of those opportunities, and

provide teachers with the time and classroom coverage needed for them to be able to attend.

Provide resources. Teachers feel that a significant component to instructional leadership

involves procuring resources. With 69 appearances, the provision of resources was the third most

frequently occurring response to questions 3-6 on the questionnaire (Appendix D). Teachers

appreciate it when administrators will do everything in their power to find resources or the

money to purchase resources the teachers feel they need. One teacher said of the administrators


at his school, “They’re very good resourcers; if you need a resource, or if you feel you need

resources, they’re very good about it, and if it’s possible, they’ll help you get that resource.”

Another teacher expressed a similar sentiment: “No one has ever told me no if I needed

something, so if I say, ‘I need some books,’ they just say, ‘OK, let’s see what we can do to make

it happen.’” One teacher responded that his or her executive principal “has made sure that

teachers are provided with the necessary resources in the classroom.”

Some respondents indicated that those necessary resources are not always materials;

sometimes they are human resources for when the content knowledge of the administrators falls

short: “If I do have something that I need help with that they don’t know, they will find

somebody who does and get them here.” Regardless of what the resource is, teachers want help

getting it and recognize it when their administrators put forth effort to provide such material

support: “Anything that I need, they go out of their way to help get it for me.”

Provide material support. Although the most cited type of support was emotional, some

respondents did mention material support in the form of making sure classes are covered for

teachers or helping them find relief from taking on too many responsibilities. In one such

example, a teacher stated, “I have had administrators that knew I was completely overwhelmed

come in and insist they take something off my plate.” Other teachers mentioned that their

administrators coordinate the coverage of their classes when they need to be gone for just one

class period to attend a meeting or a doctor’s appointment, which saves them from having to

miss the whole school day or even half of the school day. This teacher coverage decreases the

amount of time students are being taught by a substitute teacher rather than a regular certified

teacher.


Emotional behaviors. One emotional behavior, providing emotional support, was

attributed to both assistant principals and executive principals. Support was mentioned 25 times

in reference to assistant principals, 16 times in reference to executive principals, and 17 times in

general. It is not possible for all of those references to be assumed to be emotional support

because many respondents did not elaborate, but a majority of the responses that gave details of

the support were emotional in nature, being related to teacher morale, affecting teacher

commitment levels, or motivating and inspiring teachers.

Provide emotional support. Teachers feel that it is very important that their

administrators provide them with emotional support. They want to know that administrators will

lift them up rather than tear them down, especially when they are trying to innovate and improve

their craft. One teacher explained, “The best help I get from administrators is support and not

judging or criticizing when I do something that doesn’t work.” Teachers need this kind of

emotional support to be receptive to suggestions and feedback from observations and be inspired

to keep persevering:

I see my AP in my class every day and there is no apprehension on my part because I

know she is there to support and encourage me. She has built a positive relationship with

me, so I am willing to go above and beyond in order to make [our school] the best it can

be.

Teachers want to know that their administrators are invested in their personal success and care

about each individual teacher. One respondent said, “It’s really about support, just to know that

someone’s there, and cares, and wants you to do well.”

Teachers also shared that it helps them to be successful in the classroom when their

administrators provide emotional support for teachers in their personal lives as well. One teacher


pointed out about his or her administrators, “They check in on us for more than just academics,”

and another respondent said, “They take time to get to know what’s going on in your life.”

Teachers appreciate it when administrators provide them with emotional support for their

endeavors both inside and outside of the classroom.

Teacher perception of behaviors specific to assistant principals. Two behaviors were

mentioned in all three school contexts only in reference to the instructional leadership roles of

assistant principals and not that of executive principals: student discipline and knowledge of

curriculum and instruction.

Student discipline. Student discipline is a material behavior that affects teachers’

instructional time through controlling the frequency of disruptions teachers experience. In

response to the questionnaire question of what role assistant principals have in instructional

leadership, a teacher responded that “they assist teachers with discipline issues to help teachers

have more time to focus on instruction.” Another teacher added that they are “supporting

classroom discipline by speaking with disruptive students.” According to another respondent,

“They help discipline students that need it and also help all aspects of the school run smoothly.”

The teachers indicated this role is reserved for assistant principals in particular. In response to an

interview question about how the roles of assistant principals and the executive principal differ,

one teacher provided the following response:

Most of our APs are more for if we have trouble in the classroom on discipline areas and

things like that, more than what the head principal is. If I have a student that is causing a

disruption where the other students are not able to learn, they handle those problems for

me.


Essentially, assistant principals are in charge of student discipline and helping teachers to

maintain order in the classroom.

Knowledge of curriculum and instruction. Knowledge of curriculum and instruction is

an intellectual behavior by which administrators are sharing their content-area knowledge,

classroom management knowledge, or knowledge of general teaching strategies and best

practices. Teachers find it helpful when assistant principals can serve as content-area experts.

One teacher explained in detail how this played out in his or her school:

For the past few years, each principal has represented each of the core disciplines taught

at [our school]. When we convene for our monthly meetings, there is a principal present

who has taught in that particular area. It helps to know that your principal understands

some of the classroom struggles and is willing to support you in decisions.”

Another teacher pointed out a similar, though less formal, system by which assistant principals

serve in an instructional leadership role by “facilitating different areas of content by taking

charge of those areas, creating and implementing plans to see those areas thrive, and then

working cohesively with the faculty in implementation.”

Assistant principals are expected to be experts in classroom strategies as well. As was

previously evidenced by teacher reliance on the ability of administrators to give them helpful

feedback and supply them with strategies, teachers expect them to know strategies and know best

practices, as one respondent succinctly stated, “They are our school experts on certain

instruction.” Another teacher said, “They give great guidance with ideas and practices that have

worked for them.” One teacher cited a specific assistant principal in the building and her role as

an expert: “[She] has guided the faculty and staff in such a way as to maximize the quality of


education we provide for our students. She leads by example and is a vast array of knowledge in

many areas.” Teachers excel when their administrators are able to serve as intellectual resources.

Teacher perception of behaviors specific to the executive principal. Four behaviors

were attributed to both assistant principals and executive principals but were attributed to

executive principals more than twice as frequently as they were attributed to assistant principals

by participants representing all three school contexts. They are encourages, sets high

expectations, is open and available, and influences school culture. Three behaviors were

attributed only to executive principals by participants representing all three school contexts, and

all of them occurred with lower frequency that the other behaviors transcending school context.

They are innovates, listens, and recognizes.

Intellectual behaviors. One of the behaviors attributed solely to executive principals is an

intellectual behavior that helps provide teachers with additional knowledge or skills: innovates.

Innovates. Several teachers representing all three school contexts attributed the role of

innovator to their executive principal. In one response, a teacher said his or her principal

“constantly seeks different or innovative ways to approach instruction,” while another teacher

tied the executive principal’s innovation to strategic planning: “He is always a step ahead of

what is coming and is great at always having a plan in place to accomplish what the school needs

to accomplish.”

Emotional behaviors. Six behaviors that were attributed either primarily or solely to

executive principals were listens, recognizes, encourages, sets high expectations, is open and

available, and influences school culture.

Listens. Teachers want to know that they can go to the executive principal to talk and ask

for advice and he or she will be there and be willing to listen. Teachers like to be heard,


especially when they have concerns. One respondent said of his or her executive principal, “He

is always willing to listen and offer suggestions.” Several teachers mentioned the executive

principal having an open-door policy: “We’ve always had an open-door policy; if we’ve got any

concerns or any questions, you know we were welcomed to go to her office at any time.”

Another teacher expressed appreciation for such a policy and said, “The principal is very easy to

talk to and his open-door policy is refreshing.”

Recognizes. Teachers want administrators to recognize and celebrate the

accomplishments of students, teachers, and the school as a whole. One respondent stated, “Our

principal is very involved with our teachers, popping into classrooms, offering support, giving

kudos for successes, thanking us for our hard work and dedication in good times and bad.”

Another said, “[The principal] sends out little notes saying ‘great job today,’ you know, when we

have crazy days; that lets you know he appreciates what we do.”

Some teachers noted that they have received personal recognition for their success in the

classroom, which in turn made them even more successful. The following example comes from

one such teacher:

My principal began inviting admin/teachers from other schools to observe my classroom.

Until then, I really didn’t realize that I was (apparently) an exceptional teacher. I knew

my kids did well compared to other schools, but didn’t see myself as anything special.

When he began to do this, my confidence soared and I believe I improved exponentially

as a result of this confidence.

Still others emphasized how the principal made sure to recognize the students for their

accomplishments:


He motivates the student body to take ownership of their achievements as a whole.

Academic achievements are celebrated as are athletic achievements. The opening-day

assembly of each school year is used to recognize the previous year’s achievements and

the results are compared with those of other area high schools. Students have become

active stakeholders in achievement measures.

Encourages. Providing encouragement was mentioned 34 times: eight times with

assistant principals, 17 times with executive principals, and nine times in general. In several

responses, teachers simply offered statements such as, “He encourages and offers support to

teachers,” or “He constantly encourages us to improve and he supports the teachers no matter

what,” while others pointed out the encouragement as well as the effects of that encouragement:

“He is everywhere; he makes every stakeholder at the school feel important and encourages each

of us to give our best because he does.” Teachers believe that one of the roles of the executive

principal is to be a cheerleader, encouraging them and motivating them toward success.

Sets expectations. Setting expectations was mentioned 30 times throughout the responses

to questions 3-6 on the teacher questionnaire (Appendix D), and 20 of those times were directly

attributed to the executive principal. Teachers noted that the executive principal was responsible

for communicating expectations to administrators, teachers, and students and following up those

expectations to make sure they are being met. While some teachers just said, “sets expectations”

as a role in which the executive principal serves, others mentioned specifically that the executive

principal sets high expectations. One teacher said of his or her executive principal, “He always

expects the best from his teachers and the students at the school. He believes that our school can

be the best in our district and state,” while another simply said, “Holds teachers to high

standards,” and “has high expectations.” Others pointed out the need for clarity in those


expectations, such as one respondent who said the executive principal “makes expectations clear

from the beginning.” Teachers feel that setting high expectations is a significant role in

instructional leadership and tend to attribute that role to the executive principal.

Is open and available. Teachers like to know that they can find their executive principal

when they need to, and they appreciate it when that principal is visible and involved. One teacher

said, “Our principal has played a significant role in instructional leadership. Although he’s

dealing with a huge school, he definitely makes himself available to teachers and students alike,”

and another said, “Our head principal is involved. He is not the mystery man in the office that no

one sees. He is up and down the halls and in and out of classrooms.”

Influences school culture. Teachers see executive principals as the main influence in

school culture. Culture was mentioned 14 times, and 10 of those instances were attributed

directly to the executive principal. While some of those instances were succinct, such as with one

respondent who said the executive principal, “sets the tone and culture,” or another who said the

principal “works to make sure our school culture is accommodating to every student,” others

were very detailed in describing exactly what school culture really is and what the executive

principal’s influence does for the school:

He has demonstrated tremendous leadership and balance in truly trying (and succeeding)

to create an environment that is competitive in every area of content and extra-curricular.

He has great vision for what needs to happen and is extremely adept at creating the

atmosphere where, as employees, we want to succeed in making that vision a reality.

Teachers perceive that a part of instructional leadership is creating a school culture of success,

and they primarily attribute that role to the executive principal.


Administrators’ perception of their own behaviors. Seventeen administrators from six

schools participated in the instructional leadership questionnaire, and six administrators from

three schools participated in interviews. The researchers used questions 7, 9 and 10 of the

administrator questionnaire (Appendix C) and interview questions 1-4 (Appendix E) to uncover

the behaviors that administrators in effective Tennessee high schools perceive to be significant

components of instructional leadership. Four administrator behaviors appeared in the responses

from administrators in all three school contexts: coaching, providing strategies, collaboration,

and professional development.

Intellectual behaviors. Two of the four administrator behaviors are intellectual

behaviors, which provide teachers with knowledge or help them to acquire skills, often requiring

administrators to possess specialized knowledge or skills in order to carry them out: coaching

and providing strategies.

Coaching. As was presented earlier, coaching includes three components: knowledge of

curriculum and instruction, participation in classroom observation, and provision of feedback.

Coaching was the most frequently occurring response, showing up 23 times in the responses to

three questions. Several administrators gave short responses such as “provide feedback”,

“walkthroughs with follow-up coaching for teachers,” “walkthrough mentoring,” “day in and day

out mentoring of teachers,” or “daily walkthroughs and continued feedback for my teachers.”

Although these are brief responses, they imply that the feedback is given in an informal, non-

evaluative and non-threatening manner and with more frequency than observations occurring for

the purpose of summative evaluation.


Other administrators described their coaching behaviors in more detail. In response to an

inquiry of what is the single most important thing administrators do to improve instruction, one

administrator gave the following response:

Coaching! The executive principal has the admin team coaching teachers. Assistant

principals have 13 teachers we are coaching. We observe teachers weekly and have

feedback conversations with them within that same week. In the feedback conversation,

the ‘coaches’ give action steps to teachers. This is done weekly.

Administrators perceive that coaching is an important component of instructional leadership, and

the observations that go along with coaching must be frequent and accompanied by feedback.

Providing strategies. Administrators mentioned providing ideas and strategies 10 times

throughout their responses to questions 7, 9, and 10 on the administrator questionnaire

(Appendix C). Several respondents included the phrases “provide ideas” or “improve teachers’

knowledge of effective instruction,” but others mentioned providing strategies when they were

asked in question 10 (Appendix C) to give specific examples of how they have helped teachers

improve their instruction. One administrator explained how he or she helps teachers school-wide:

“About every month I present a learning strategy or teaching tool from the AVID library.”

Another administrator explained how he or she helped an individual teacher by providing her

with strategies and ideas:

Recently a teacher was struggling to keep students engaged due to misbehavior in the

classroom. I offered some strategies/ideas on how to address the behavior and also how

to involve parents effectively. She reported that it made a big difference in classroom

instruction.


Material behaviors. Administrator respondents mentioned two material behaviors:

providing collaboration time and providing professional development opportunities.

Collaboration. Collaboration was mentioned six times either in the form of the word

“collaboration” or mention of “PLCs,” which stands for professional learning communities. Only

one respondent mentioned collaboration with slightly more detail: “Our Biology scores increased

dramatically last year because of a focused effort on collaboration with all subject-area teachers.”

Because this response is vague, it is not entirely clear whether administrators were indicating that

they organized collaboration, participated in the actual collaboration, or provided teachers with

the time to collaborate, however, the teachers indicated in their responses that their

administrators had done all three.

Professional development. Professional development, or PD, was mentioned eight times

within the responses to questions 7, 9 and 10 (Appendix C). Most administrator respondents only

mentioned “PD” or “professional development” as part of a serial list of their roles, but two

respondents gave slightly more detailed responses, which expounded on the roles. One

administrator indicated that he or she helps teachers by encouraging them to attend available PD

sessions, which implies that the administrator is also keeping aware of such opportunities.

Specifically, the administrator said he or she improves teacher instruction by “encouraging them

to take advantage of professional development.” Another administrator’s response implies the

administrator takes a more active role by actually providing professional development to

teachers: “Most of my job entails working with teachers through evaluations and professional

development.” Whether it is conducting professional development sessions or locating them,

administrators perceive that professional development is a component of their role as an

instructional leader.


Superintendents’ perception of the ideal administrative behaviors. Three

superintendents representing two school contexts completed the superintendent questionnaire.

When asked to give the behaviors of an effective administrator, all three superintendents gave

different responses. The only theme present in all three responses, though stated in different

ways, was that administrators should have the drive to keep improving, which can be interpreted

as setting high expectations—an emotional behavior. One superintendent wrote the following

response:

Strong communicator, clear articulation of mission and vision, high expectations for

students and staff, works with stakeholders, monitors and assesses on a consistent basis,

encourages staff input, gives credit to others, is student focused, and is never satisfied.

Another superintendent said that effective administrators listen, persevere, and show flexibility.

The other superintendent provided the following behaviors: (1) is dedicated, (2) is hard-working,

(3) is able to juggle many different jobs at the same time while staying organized, (4) is loyal to

the school, district, and students, and (5) cares about students and wants what is best for them.

Confluence of perceptions of teachers, administrators, and superintendents

regarding behaviors exhibited by effective instructional leaders. Once again, the

disproportionate number of responses among the three roles represented by the participants

generated a disproportionate number of transcendent traits. Figure 3 shows the confluence of the

transcendent behaviors generated by participants in all three roles: teachers, administrators, and

superintendents. The data show that teachers value intellectual, material, and emotional

behaviors while administrators only cite intellectual and material behaviors as being associated

with instructional leadership.


Figure 3

Behaviors Teachers Administrators Superintendents Intellectual behaviors Coaching (observations & feedback) � � Give advice & provide strategies � � Analyze data � Knowledge of curriculum &instruction � Innovate

�

Material behaviors Provide collaboration time � � Provide professional development � � Provide resources � Provide material support � Student discipline

�

Emotional behaviors Provide emotional support � Listen � Provide recognition � Encourage � Set high expectations � � Be open & available � Influence school culture � Figure 3. The confluence of perceptions of teachers, administrators, and superintendents regarding the behaviors in which effective instructional leaders engage.

Other Findings

Behaviors teachers wish administrators engaged in more. Teacher participants were

asked on the questionnaire (Appendix D) what specific steps a principal or assistant principal

could take, that are not already being taken, to help improve their classroom instruction.

Although a majority of the 200 respondents said that there was nothing more their administrators

could be doing because they are already doing a fantastic job, seven behaviors were mentioned in


the responses from participants from all three school contexts: provide collaboration time,

support discipline, hold students accountable, model teaching strategies, offer more professional

development opportunities, provide more technology resources, and provide more frequent non-

evaluative feedback.

Support discipline. With 16 instances, discipline was the most frequent response when

teachers were asked what administrators could do to help teachers improve their instruction.

Teachers expressed that having to deal with discipline in the classroom takes away from their

instruction time. One teacher simply said that administrators could help “by dealing with the

discipline in the building so that teachers can teach.” Another explained the issue in more detail:

The best thing that could be done at this moment that would help my classroom

instruction and environment is helping more with discipline issues of our students in the

school. Less and less is being done and more pushed onto individual teachers to address.

Others echoed the sentiment that consequences are not severe enough. One teacher called for

“more discipline school-wide!!! One period of [in-school suspension] doesn’t work!”

Several teachers have concerns that discipline policies are not being properly enforced.

Teachers requested for administrators to “enforce discipline procedures [and] give real

consequences for offending students,” and “enforce disciplinary measures.” Others asked for

there to be more consistent enforcement of discipline. One teacher asked for “consistency and

follow-through with discipline,” and another such teacher said, “Be more consistent when

handling behavior issues of the students. Take a teacher’s concern more seriously.” In essence,

teachers feel that they are not receiving enough support with school discipline.

Provide collaboration time. Although respondents from every school included in the

study mentioned that their administration already supports collaboration, teachers feel they still


need more. Several teachers asked for more collaboration time during the school day. One said,

“Provide additional time within the regular school day to collaborate with other teachers who are

in the same subject areas.” Another requested that administrators “set aside more time for high

school teachers to collaborate with other teachers.” Others mentioned building in common

planning time, such as one teacher who asked that administrators “provide more time during the

school [day] to collaborate with fellow teachers, planning periods at the same time.” Teachers

want administrators to set aside more time for them to collaborate with other teachers.

Hold students accountable. Teachers feel that administrators should hold students more

accountable for their own success rather than placing too much of the responsibility on the

teachers. One such teacher said, “The principals need to more strongly voice and take an overall

stand on student accountability. Too much is being laid at the feet of the teachers and staff to

assure that students pass, more so than the students.” Another teacher offered a suggestion for

how administrators could help increase student accountability: “They could do random

walkthroughs to make sure students are on task.” Teachers want administrators to do more to

hold students responsible for their own success.

Model teaching strategies. Teachers want to see administrators doing what those

administrators are asking teachers to do by modeling implementation of teaching strategies and

best practices. Several respondents asked that administrators be willing to teach a model lesson.

Respondents said, “Be willing to teach a lesson and model what you expect,” “Model activities

in my classroom. Teach a class period and let me observe,” and “Instead of telling you about a

technique, show us how it works in a real life situation. It only has to be a few minutes.” These

teachers want administrators to do more than tell them about strategies; they want administrators

to show them.


Provide professional development opportunities. Although providing professional

development was mentioned as a behavior in which administrators are already engaging, 11

respondents asked for more professional development opportunities but specified the need for

those to provide content area support. In one response, a teacher said, “They could provide more

specific workshops for my particular subject,” and another teacher asked for “more instructional

training in subject area and how to make [the] subject area more relevant to students’ learning.”

Provide resources and technology. Nine respondents asked for administrators to provide

more resources, and a majority of those resources were specifically cited as technology

resources. One teacher said, “Get us more money for computers and other technology. They

already do this, but we can’t have too much money.” Another teacher indicated a need for

updated technology infrastructure: “Technology!!! We need new systems that work. I spend a lot

of time running around to find a computer that works. We need updated servers that can keep up

with the classroom.”

Frequent, non-evaluative feedback. Teachers want administrators to provide them with

frequent, non-evaluative feedback. Some teachers only implied that the feedback be non-

evaluative by requesting a higher frequency, such as teachers who said, “Give more critical

feedback more frequently,” or “They could observe my work more and take time to talk over the

activities they observed.” Others specifically asked for both frequency and that the observations

and feedback not be tied to evaluations. One such teacher said, “They could do more informal

evaluating,” and another said that they could “give feedback that isn’t tied to an evaluation but

rather practical teaching insights.” Another respondent said that “more informal observations

(without evaluation) would be helpful.” One teacher both requested informal observations and

gave an opinion as to the benefit: “Having administrators observe not only for evaluations helps


to start a dialogue and get suggestions without feeling nervous/pressure.” Finally, one respondent

asked for informal observations and made a suggestion as to what the corresponding feedback

might look like: “More walkthrough times with non-evaluative feedback in the forms of ‘I likes’

and ‘I wonder if.’”

Administrators’ suggestions for how they could be more effective. In order to be able

to offer suggestions for improving instructional leadership in high schools, the researchers asked

administrator interview participants both what gets in the way of their ability to serve in an

instructional leadership role and what responsibility they would take off their plate if they could

(Appendix E). The administrators indicated that they feel they have too many responsibilities

competing for their time, and they would like assistance with menial tasks.

Fewer responsibilities. Administrators feel that they have too many responsibilities

competing with their responsibility to be instructional leaders. As one administrator said, “We

wear so many different hats it’s hard to make instruction the main focus.” The majority of the

other respondents who mentioned having too many responsibilities specifically mentioned

managing school discipline as a burden they wish they could have removed. One administrator

said, “Time is the obstacle, especially when you are dealing with discipline.” When asked what

aspect of the administrator role the participant would like to see removed, another respondent

said, “Discipline. I have no interest in it. Discipline is not why I went into administration. I am

all about curriculum.” On the flip side, an administrator from a school that had removed

discipline from the list of administrator responsibilities by hiring deans was incapable of

identifying any aspect of the job because discipline had already been removed: “I really can’t

stress enough that taking out the discipline really makes a difference, I think, because we can

really be what we’re meant to be.” Therefore, administrators wish that they did not have so many


responsibilities, and, for most of them, discipline is at the top of the list for what they would like

to see removed from their list of responsibilities.

Assistance. For administrators, especially assistant principals, who do not have

secretaries, the need for assistance with administrative tasks is at the top of their list of what

would help them to better serve as instructional leaders. When asked what aspect of the role of

administrator they would like to see removed, one respondent said, “Some of the paperwork.”

Another respondent mentioned paperwork and then some: “I’m making copies at 7 A.M. If

somebody could just do this for me. It’s the volume. If I could reduce the volume or get some

help [with] paperwork and phone calls and counting tests.” Administrators want assistance with

the tasks that do not have to be completed by them because they are menial, administrative tasks

that do not require any highly specialized knowledge or skillsets.

Administrator preparation. The researchers asked administrators to respond to several

questions regarding administrator preparation. In question 6 on the administrator questionnaire

(Appendix C), the researchers asked participants what aspect of all of their prior experiences in

education best prepared them to be an instructional leader. The only response that was consistent

across participants from all three school contexts was that administrators were best prepared to

be instructional leaders through their own classroom experience. In order to look for possible

steps to be taken to improve administrator preparation, the researchers asked administrator

interview participants what they would add as a requirement to becoming an administrator.

While there was no one response that appeared in all three school contexts, the top two responses

appeared with equal frequency in two out of the three school contexts: (1) job

shadowing/mentoring and (2) being specifically trained on job-specific and location-specific

system-based tasks.


Classroom experience. Administrators believe that the greatest contributing factor to

their being able to be a successful instructional leader is classroom experience: “The actual work

in the classroom is what gave me the confidence to lead teachers in successfully building their

craft.” Several respondents also mentioned the specific importance of not only being a classroom

teacher but being a classroom teacher who is focused on self-improvement, personal growth, and

being successful in the classroom. One administrator said, “Growing in my own teaching was

helpful,” while another administrator responded in detail:

Being a classroom teacher is key to being a successful instructional leader. When you’ve

been on the front lines, you know what classroom teachers need, and if you are open to

parent and student feedback as a classroom teacher, you can fine-tune methods and

improve student learning.

Still another administrator specifically mentioned success with diverse students as measured by

student growth data when he or she said that the greatest component in instructional leadership

preparation was “success in the classroom (TVAAS data) teaching various levels of math with a

variety of students.”

Job shadowing/internship. When administrators were asked what they would want to see

be a requirement for all prospective administrators, tied as the top response was for

administrators to be able to shadow an administrator in the building in the style of an internship.

One administrator said, “I wish I could have been more prepared. If I could have done an

internship with [the executive principal], that would have been great,” and another corroborated

that interest: “If you could do some kind of internship, even if it was just for a week, to get to

experience what it’s actually like, it might make that transition easier.” One respondent added,

“Some basic logistics, like a job shadow, where you see the functions of the job would be


beneficial,” which provides an idea of the motive behind the desire and corresponds with the

other top response: job-specific and location-specific training.

Job-specific and location-specific training. Several respondents expressed an interest in

having job-specific and location-specific training to help them complete job-related tasks more

efficiently. One administrator respondent emphasized the benefit of such training and

information toward clarification of responsibilities: “I would love to have a packet to tell me

exactly what my duties are and who my go-to people are to get it.” Others specifically mentioned

training in how to use the location-specific or district-specific computer systems. One such

respondent said the following:

I would have liked to have step-by-step instructions on how to use our software on how

to report student discipline and attendance, and you just have to get in there and figure it

out, or somebody has to take the time to train you. I would have liked to have a packet

and some training before I ever step foot into that office.

Although familiar with the district from a previous role as a teacher, the following respondent

also noted the need for administrators who are new to the role to be able to learn how to use the

systems. The respondent said, “I was familiar with our attendance system, but I didn’t know how

to enter discipline. They don’t have a training for new administrators in [our district]. They just

say ‘go.’ How do I make this go into the computer?” Still others pointed out that such a training

would be helpful even if one is not new to the role but is new to the district:

It’s little things like paperwork or just policies, especially if you’re new to the district,

that are just helpful if you have somebody to ask or somebody to guide you and sit with

you and walk through things so you’re just not going it alone and failing and having to

redo things.


Administrators who are new to the role or new to the district want to be trained in job-

specific and location-specific tasks and policies so that they do not waste valuable time and

resources either having to figure the systems out on their own or having to complete tasks

multiple times due to errors.

Administrator recruitment and selection. The researchers asked superintendents to

explain how they know administrative candidates are qualified and ready to move into

administration. In question 4 of the superintendent questionnaire (Appendix B), superintendents

were asked to identify what they look for in executive principals and assistant principals in

question 5. Additionally, superintendents were also asked to explain how they determine the

readiness of transitions from both classroom teacher to assistant principal (question 6) and

assistant principal to executive principal (question 7). From these superintendent responses, the

researchers discovered that successful classroom experience, communication skills, intrinsic

motivation, success in leadership positions, interpersonal skills, demonstrated ability to handle

challenging responsibilities, initiative, and a drive toward improvement are all factors for which

superintendents search for evidence in order to hire administrators who will improve student

achievement.

Hiring assistant principals. In hiring assistant principals, superintendents look for

demonstrated success in the classroom, initiative that accompanies a strong work ethic, and a

desire toward improvement, ideally one that is motivated by a goal toward eventual advancement

into an executive principal role. When superintendents look for teachers who meet these

characteristics, they look for teachers who are intrinsically motivated toward continuous

improvement, “are taking on leadership roles in the building already,” are willing “to step out of

their comfort zone,” and “are successful in the classroom.” One superintendent said, “I want to


see they were an effective teacher first of all, then I look at what they have done as a leader.” In

an administrator interview, an executive principal also emphasized the importance of hiring

principals who have demonstrated success in the classroom, referencing evaluation scores as a

means of measurement: “I hire [level] 5 teachers to be principals. If they’re not a 5, I don’t want

them as an assistant principal.”

Hiring executive principals. As with assistant principals, superintendents want to see

successful classroom experience in the backgrounds of their executive principal candidates. They

want to know that the executive principal will have a capacity for leading instruction: “First and

foremost they must be an instructional leader.” In addition to their classroom experience,

however, superintendents want to see their leadership track record, and in that track record they

want to see that they have “handled adversity” with “confidence and competence.” In addition to

echoing the indicators mentioned for potential assistant principal candidates, the superintendents

emphasized two qualities: visionary and communicator. The superintendents stressed the

importance that prospective executive principals be visionaries and have the communication

skills to articulate that vision to stakeholders and gain their support.

Challenges to hiring effective administrators. When asked about situations in which

superintendents have hired administrators who turned out to be ineffective, one superintendent

shared that an administrative candidate was a great interviewer and had great recommendations

but that “it was all a façade.” One superintendent expressed that he or she lacked sufficient

evidence of examples of the candidate’s building-level leadership from a previous position. The

third superintendent expressed that he or she was not sure what would have helped him or her to

avoid hiring the ineffective administrator and shared the risk involved in any hire, “I read one


time that selecting principals is like selecting stocks—you really don’t know how well they will

do until years down the road.”


Discussions and Conclusions

Summary

The researchers conducted this study at the request of the Tennessee Organization of

School Superintendents (TOSS) in order to clearly define effective instructional leadership as

perceived by Tennessee school superintendents, school leaders and teachers. The research also

aimed to identify the school-level leadership qualities that are perceived to have the greatest

impact on student achievement and growth while also transcending all contexts: suburban, urban,

and rural. According to its website, TOSS is the leading advocacy group in the state of

Tennessee for public education. The organization has a primary focus not only concerning the

interests of Tennessee superintendents, but also maintains a considerable interest in advocacy for

public education as a whole. Based on personal communication with Wayne Miller, the

executive director of TOSS, qualified principal applicants are scarce, and even fewer principal

applicants exist who have the skills to be an instructional leader. Based on these two instances of

scarcity, TOSS requested that our research team investigate the necessary qualities of an

instructional leader so as to help Tennessee superintendents make informed hiring decisions. As

a means of accomplishing this stated purpose, the researchers proposed the following research

questions:

1. How do superintendents, administrators, and teachers define instructional

leadership?


Once equipped with these two questions, the researchers designed questionnaires for

teachers, administrators, and superintendents to assist in accomplishing our stated purpose. After

pilot testing the questionnaire, Tennessee schools were selected based on their growth scores as


well as their contextual location. In order to find an answer to these questions that transcends

context, the researchers selected schools in each of the three contexts: rural, urban, and suburban.

The pool of schools was filtered based on growth scores while also taking into consideration the

socioeconomic makeup of the school. The researchers wanted to target successful schools, but

they did not want schools that were successful due to reasons that may not be attributed to school

level leadership, such as a high socioeconomic status, which often account for increased

financial and human resources. Once the researchers targeted the schools, they then sought

permission to conduct their research at the district level followed by the school level. Once

permission was granted, the researchers solicited the participation of the schools’ teachers and

principals as well as the superintendent of the school district.

Once the responses to the questionnaires were collected, the researchers then developed

interview questions (Appendices E and F) to assist in the triangulation of data while also giving

the researchers the ability to fill in any gaps or questions that appeared in the questionnaire

responses.

At this point, the researchers coded all the data with the hope that trends would develop.

In order to develop these trends, the researchers focused on finding similarities in the responses

that existed in each of the three contexts (suburban, rural, and urban). In subsequent sections of

this chapter, the findings are discussed, conclusions are drawn, and the implications of the

findings are discussed.

Interpretations of the Findings

Research question 1. Instructional leadership is a term that does not have one clear

definition. Thus, before we can seek to determine the qualities of an instructional leader, we must

define the term. Even with the literature review, outlined in Chapter 2, there was a lack of


continuity between the researchers’ instructional leadership definitions. In the questionnaire, the

researchers asked each participant to define instructional leadership in his or her own terms, and

no parameters were given to guide them in a certain direction. The purpose of including this

question in each of the questionnaires was to answer research question number 1: How do

superintendents, administrators, and teachers define instructional leadership? From the data, the

researchers developed the following definition for instructional leadership:

Instructional leadership includes more than the traditional roles of school leadership such

as teacher evaluation, budget management, facility management, student discipline, and

scheduling. Instructional leadership is focusing on the growth and development of teachers

through non-evaluative coaching and mentoring, while also providing resources; professional

development; financial, personal, and instructional support; and the acquisition, analysis, and use

of data for the purposes of improving instruction.

Essentially, instructional leadership shifts the primary focus of school leadership to

improving teachers’ capacity to teach, thereby increasing students’ capacity to learn.

In the following sections, the researchers will discuss and explain how they arrived at this

definition from the responses of the teachers, administrators, and superintendents that

participated.

How teachers define instructional leadership. The teacher perspective on this topic is

highly valuable. Teachers are the ones who are directly impacted by administrators’ leadership,

so their perspective has high relevancy. In this study, 200 teachers participated by answering

several open-ended questions. Several teachers offered an overarching definition of instructional

leadership, but most teachers outlined behaviors that effective principals engage in that they feel

demonstrate instructional leadership. The behaviors mentioned that existed in all three contexts


were coaching, modeling, providing support, providing resources, analyzing and using data,

providing collaboration time, influencing school culture, maintaining student discipline, setting

high expectations, being actively involved, monitoring student progress, motivating the faculty,

and providing professional development. Of these 12 common behaviors, coaching, modeling,

support, providing resources, and analyzing and using data occurred with the most frequency.

Based on these behaviors, teachers seem to view an instructional leader as a guide and

facilitator for their own professional growth. Almost all of the behaviors mentioned by the

teachers would contribute to guide or facilitate a teacher’s professional growth. Principals do not

always have the ability to hire and fire the best talent, so it is in the principal’s best interest to

develop the talent they have. Coaching appeared with the most frequency as a behavior

associated with instructional leadership.

In the interviews and in the questionnaires, a definite separation between coaching and

evaluative feedback developed. Coaching encompasses the knowledge of strategies and best

practices, the observation of a teacher in action, and timely feedback concerning those

observations. In the current state of education, observations are frequently only done for

evaluative purposes, which contributes to a culture of fear. This perception does not lead to the

positive development of quality teachers. Non-evaluative coaching appears to contribute to a

certain level of relational trust that allows for teachers to take risks and pursue continuous

learning opportunities. If the observations are seen as evaluative, teachers often do not see them

as opportunities for growth but rather as attacks on their teaching. Also, with evaluative

observations, feedback is not given for growth, but it is given to grade the teachers. In order to

build a culture that promotes growth, principals should establish coaching protocols that are

nonjudgmental.


Modeling was the behavior that appeared with the next highest frequency. By modeling,

teachers sometimes meant different things. Sometimes teachers expressed a desire to have

principals model effective teaching practices by teaching a demonstration unit, while others

focused simply on the idea that principals should set an example for the behaviors that they want

exhibited by their staff. Essentially, principals should lead by example. If a principal expects a

certain behavior from the staff, then the principal should exemplify that behavior. This is a key

to classroom teaching, and teachers think it should apply to administration as well. Modeling is

about setting clear goals and expectations for the staff, while also making sure that those goals

and expectations are reasonable and actionable by everyone including the administration. This

would contribute to teacher buy-in and contribute to improved culture. Modeling also provides

professional growth of teachers. It physically shows teachers what behaviors are expected and

demonstrates teaching strategies so that teachers can improve their current practices.

Support was the third most frequent behavior represented in the teacher responses.

Teachers referred to the desire for support in a multitude of different areas. They referred to

financial support, professional support, and instructional support. Teachers believe that

principals are there to help them become more effective teachers. There also seems to be an

undertone of a dislike for micromanaging behaviors that administrators sometimes engage in.

Teachers desire a certain level of autonomy within their classroom, but they also desire

administrative support for when they have questions or need help.

Going along with this idea of support, the next most frequent behavior that appeared in

the responses was the attainment of resources. Once again this behavior contributes to the

guidance and facilitation of professional growth. One teacher clearly stated that an important

role of an instructional leader was “making sure resources are available to teachers to enhance


their teaching potential.” In order for teachers to be the best they can be, they are going to need

resources. Teachers believe that it is the role of an instructional leader to supply those resources

so that teachers can fulfill their potential.

The final behavior that appeared with high frequency was data analysis and use.

Currently, education is very much data driven. Teachers, principals, districts, and states are

highly focused on achievement data. This data is a metric for teacher evaluation, school

evaluation, and district evaluation. This is a high stakes environment, and teachers expect

instructional leaders to be proficient in regard to accessing, interpreting, and using data to help

teachers determine their weaknesses so that they can improve. Teachers want administrators to

help them use data so that they may increase student achievement and growth. Once again the

role of the administrator would be as a guide and facilitator.

How administrators define instructional leadership. Administrators were asked to

define their own beliefs concerning the definition of instructional leadership. Once again, most

of the responses used behaviors to define instructional leadership. Sixteen administrators

participated in the research. Because of the case study design, far more teachers participated

than administrators, so the researchers were not presented with as many responses from the

administrator perspective. Despite this, two behaviors did transcend all three contexts, and those

were coaching and modeling.

From a coaching standpoint, the administrators who participated focused largely on the

ability of instructional leaders to observe a classroom and then provide actionable feedback to

the teachers with the goal of improving instruction. This would imply that the observing

administrator would have a considerable knowledge and understanding of teaching strategies and

best practices. If they did not have this knowledge base then their feedback would not be


substantive. Modeling from an administrative perspective is “modeling positive instruction in all

we do, whether it be during a faculty meeting or in a classroom modeling strategies that are

effective for learning.” This quote sums up the ideas of being able to model effective instruction

through a demonstration lesson as well as modeling the expected behaviors desired from the

faculty.

How superintendents define instructional leadership. Similarly to the participation of

administrators, superintendent participation was minimal. Two hundred teachers participated,

while only 16 administrators and three superintendents completed the survey. Also

superintendent participation occurred in only two of the three contexts: rural and suburban. This

did not supply a large sample size, and thus it was impossible to triangulate the data across all

contexts. Despite this, in the three superintendent responses, there was an expressed belief that

instructional leaders should focus on teaching and learning in their building while also providing

an atmosphere for teacher growth. The superintendent approach to defining instructional

leadership seemed to be couched in much more general terms than with the administrators and

teachers. This most likely has to do with the broad oversight that superintendents have over

schools and administrators.

Summary of research question 1. Superintendents, principals, and teachers all agree on

one item – instructional leaders should be focused on the growth of teachers in their building.

The principal data triangulation showed coaching and modeling as the desired behaviors of

instructional leaders, while teachers expanded that to include 11 other behaviors: providing

support, providing resources, analyzing and using data, providing collaboration time, influencing

school culture, maintaining student discipline, setting high expectations, being actively involved,

monitoring student progress, motivating the faculty, and providing professional development.


The agreement between teachers and administrators suggests the necessity of coaching and

modeling when defining instructional leadership. Superintendents took a much broader approach

but definitely suggested that instructional leaders should grow the talent of the teachers in their

school, which coaching and modeling would provide.

Research question 2. The second research question, “what are the qualities that effective

instructional leaders possess?” became a two-fold question. The researchers posed questions in

both the questionnaire and in the interviews that elicited responses concerning the traits and

behaviors of effective instructional leaders. Additionally, in the findings, the data used to answer

the second research question were also split into those two subsets: traits and behaviors.

Therefore, the researchers chose to do the same for the discussion and conclusions of those

findings.

Traits exhibited by effective instructional leaders (research question 2). The first subset

addressed described traits of effective instructional leaders from the perspective of teachers,

administrators, and superintendents across all three contexts. The researchers concluded that the

data concerning the traits of effective instructional leaders as perceived by teachers,

administrators, and superintendents all trend into four categories: traits implying efficiency of

execution, traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior, traits implying a

personal level of care and concern for faculty, and traits implying a level of commitment to the

work. Although not every trait mentioned by teachers was also mentioned by administrators,

these four categories were represented in the data from both teachers and administrators. From

the teacher data, the traits that fall under the category of implying a personal level of care and

concern constituted the highest percentage of responses. This would strongly suggest that

teachers desire a leader that cares more about what they do at work, but also cares about them as


a person. Frequently, leaders seem to be so caught up in their work that they do not make time to

show how much they care. The following sections detail how the researchers arrived at this

conclusion.

Teachers’ perception of the traits exhibited by their administrators. Teachers were asked

to list three traits of an effective instructional leader in their building. In the responses, 24 traits

transcended all three contexts. Those 24 traits were supportive, dedicated/driven,

knowledgeable, caring, available/approachable/listener, active/energetic, positive, understanding,

honest, fair, consistent, hard-working, professional, organized, communicator, personable,

resourceful, research-driven, flexible, has integrity, open-minded, patient, resourceful, and

attentive.

On first glance this seems like an unmanageable set of data, but the researchers noted that

these traits could be grouped into four categories. Below, each of the four categories is listed

followed by the respective traits that fall into each category.

• Traits implying a level of commitment to the work:

o Dedicated/driven

o Active/energetic

o Hard-working

• Traits implying a personal level of care and concern for faculty:

o Supportive

o Caring

o Understanding

o Available/approachable/listener

o Personable


• Traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior:

o Honest

o Fair

o Consistent

o Positive

o Professional

• Traits implying efficiency of execution:

o Knowledgeable

o Organized

o Communicator

With these groupings, the researchers were able to ascertain the basic foundation of an

effective instructional leader as perceived by teachers. Teachers perceive that an administrator

must be committed, caring, ethical, productive, knowledgeable, and possess communication and

organizational skills in order to be effective instructional leader. What is interesting is that these

leadership traits could be applied to quality leaders in any field, but the significance of each trait

might vary.

Administrators’ perception of their own traits. Administrators were asked to provide

adjectives to describe effective instructional leadership and traits of effective instructional

leaders. In the responses, four traits transcended all contexts in the administrator survey:

• Honest/transparent

• Energetic/passionate

• Caring


• Organized

Each of these traits fits into the same trait categories identified in the results from the

teacher survey. Honesty/transparency implies a dedication to ethical behavior.

Energetic/passionate indicates a certain high level of commitment to the work at hand. Caring

suggests an understanding of the importance of personal care and concern for the faculty and

students. Organized matches one of the overarching traits from the teacher responses in the

efficiency of execution trait category. This suggests a level of accuracy to the significance of

those four trait categories. Also when the data was further analyzed, the researchers noticed a

series of traits that also appeared in two of the three contexts: communicator, fair, firm, forward-

thinking, and listener. These traits also align with the four categories as shown below:


o Energetic/passionate


o Caring

o Listener (two contexts)


o Honest/transparent

o Firm (two contexts)

o Fair (two contexts)


o Organized

o Communicator (two contexts)

o Forward-thinking (two contexts)


Superintendents’ perception of the traits administrators should exhibit. Once again, the

superintendent data only represents the view of three superintendents while also only

representing two of the three contexts: suburban and rural. Despite this limitation, similar traits

from the administrator and teacher questionnaire did arise: listener, personable, empathetic,

understanding, kind, humble, trustworthy, motivated, driven/focused, energetic, organized,

communicator, innovative, and confident. Only listener was represented across the two

represented contexts. Listening can mean a number of different things from a leadership

perspective and from a superintendent perspective. Listening could mean listening to superiors,

or listening to stakeholders, or listening to faculty and staff, or listening to students. Despite

listening being the only trait to transcend the two represented contexts, several other traits were

also listed and they all fall under one of the four trait categories, noted below.


o Driven/focused

o Energetic

o Motivated


o Listener (two contexts)

o Personable (one context)

o Empathetic (one context)

o Understanding (one context)

o Kind (one context)



o Trustworthy (one context)

o Confident (one context)

o Humble (one context)


o Organized (one context)

o Communicator (one context)

o Innovative (one context)

Despite the fact that there was only one transcendent trait mentioned by superintendents,

the researchers believe that the superintendent questionnaire data still support the findings

presented in the teacher and administrator data.

Behaviors exhibited by effective instructional leaders (research question 2). In this

portion of the study, the researchers again focused on research question number 2, but with a

focus on behaviors. Research question 2 states: What are the qualities that effective instructional

leaders possess? In determining qualities, the researchers considered two aspects: traits and

behaviors. In the previous section, the researchers analyzed the traits that effective instructional

leaders possess, and now the lens has been shifted to focus on how effective instructional leaders

behave in reality.

According to the trending data, behaviors of effective instructional leaders as perceived

by both teachers and administrators can be sorted into three categories: intellectual behaviors,

material behaviors, and emotional behaviors. It is interesting to note the difference between the

perceived behaviors associated with assistant principals versus executive principals. Assistant

principal behaviors fall largely into the intellectual and material categories, while the behaviors


of executive principals as instructional leaders fall largely in the emotional category. This shows

the difference in the role between the two: assistant principals are concerned more with the day-

to-day operation of the school, whereas the executive principal is more concerned with the

school culture as a whole. Teachers cited intellectual, material, and emotional behaviors of

administrators as being effective in helping teachers to be successful in the classroom, but no

transcendent emotional behaviors emerged among the administrator responses. Therefore, the

researchers concluded that while administrators either do not perceive that they participate in

emotional behaviors or they do not assign value to those behaviors in the context of instructional

leadership, they do engage in emotional behaviors, which teachers find to be significant

contributors to their success in the classroom. The following sections detail how the researchers

arrived at these conclusions.

Teacher perception of administrator behaviors. Through questions 3 through 6 on the

Teacher questionnaire (Appendix D), the researchers attempted to discover the behaviors of

effective instructional leaders as perceived by teachers. Based on the results, 18 behaviors were

identified that transcended all three contexts. Eight of the behaviors applied to both executive

and assistant principals, although were largely attributed to assistant principals: provide

feedback, conduct classroom observations, give advice/provide strategies, analyze data, provide

support, provide collaboration time, lead professional development or provide access to it, and

provide resources. Four behaviors were attributed with higher frequency to executive principals:

is open/available, influences culture, encourages, and sets high expectations. Two behaviors

were attributed to assistant principals only: student discipline and possesses knowledge of

curriculum and instruction. Finally, three behaviors were recognized as applying to the

executive principal only. All of these behaviors trended into three categories: emotional,


material and intellectual. Below is a breakdown of the categories with the appropriately

classified behaviors. Support appears in some form in all three categories, so in effect there are

19 behaviors.

• Intellectual

o Provide feedback

o Conduct frequent classroom observations

o Give advice/provide strategies

o Analyze data

o Knowledge of curriculum and instruction

o Innovates

• Material

o Provide collaboration time

o Lead or provide access to professional development

o Provide resources

o Provide material support

o Student discipline

• Emotional

o Encouragement

o Listens

o Recognizes

o Encourages

o Sets expectations

o Is open and available


o Influences school culture

o Emotional support

Teacher perception of all administrators. While all 19 behaviors are attributed to

administrators, only nine of them apply to all administrators: provide feedback, conduct

classroom observations, give advice/provide strategies, analyze data, provide support, provide

collaboration time, lead professional development or provide access to it, provide resources, and

emotional support. These span all three categories, but they are heavy in the intellectual and the

material categories. The only behavior that is classified in the emotional category is emotional

support.

Teacher perception of behaviors specific to assistant principals. The two behaviors

specific to Assistant Principals were student discipline and knowledge of curriculum and

instruction. The researchers qualified student discipline in the material category because

discipline problems would affect instructional time, while knowledge of curriculum and

instruction was classified as an intellectual behavior because it would entail content-area

knowledge, classroom management knowledge, or knowledge of general teaching strategies and

best practices. Once again, there is a lack of behaviors in the emotional category that teachers

associate with assistant principals.

Teacher perception of behaviors specific to the executive principal. Four behaviors were

attributed in higher frequency to executive principals: encourages, sets high expectations, is open

and available, and influences school culture. Also, three behaviors were listed as exclusively

pertaining to the executive principal: innovates, listens, and recognizes. Of these behaviors, all

of them fall into the emotional category except for innovates, which the researchers placed in the

intellectual category. Thus it would appear, based on the perceptions of the teachers who


participated, that the executive principal takes on a role geared more to the emotional well being

of the faculty.

Administrators’ perception of their own behaviors. Question 7, 9, and 10 of the

administrator questionnaire (Appendix C) asked the participating administrators questions that

allowed for the researchers to ascertain what behaviors they perceived were associated with

effective instructional leadership. Four behaviors transcended all three contexts: coaching,

providing strategies, collaboration, and professional development. Coaching and providing

strategies were both classified under the intellectual behavior category. The reason for this

classification pertains to their link to the knowledge base and practical experience of the

administrator. Coaching seems to be an integral part of instructional leadership, and the

components of this consist of regular observation and meaningful feedback. Providing strategies

and ideas is also key to the role of an instructional leader. This behavior harkens back to the

teaching experience and teaching knowledge of the administrator. This knowledge and

experience is key to leading teachers to become better at their craft.

Two material behaviors appeared in all three contexts, and those were providing

collaboration time for teachers and professional development. Collaboration time is meant to be

either time set aside during the school day or after school for teachers to plan together or share

ideas. Teaching can often feel isolating, so administrators in the instructional leadership role

recognize this behavior as important to help teachers improve their teaching. As with

collaboration, teachers appreciate it when administrators seek out professional development

opportunities for teachers to learn and grow from the knowledge of others both during the school

day and after school.


Superintendents’ perception of the ideal administrator behaviors. Three superintendents

representing two of the three contexts participated in the superintendent questionnaire (Appendix

B). The only apparent theme represented in each of the superintendent questionnaires was the

desire to continue to improve. This does not fit into the trending categories as the responses

from the other participant groups but speaks more to the growth mindset they desire

administrators to possess.

Other findings. The researchers found valuable insight in the participants’ responses

concerning what administrators’ are doing well and what they can improve. Because this study

was conducted with the understanding that the focus is on what works, these other findings are

separate from the research questions and may serve as suggestions for how educational leaders

may want to address instructional leadership within their buildings.

Teacher suggestions. Although the researchers conducted this study in highly effective

Tennessee high schools, the teachers still pointed out areas they felt could be improved. Several

teachers requested more administrator support in the following areas: professional development,

technology resources, more accountability for students, student discipline, collaboration time,

non-evaluative feedback, and the modeling of teaching strategies.

Specific needs. While the teachers in these effective high schools feel that their

administrators do a good job of providing them with plenty of professional development

opportunities, teachers want even more of them, especially in their content areas. Teachers

appreciate professional development with teaching strategies and best practices, but they want

professional development that will help them specifically in their content area. Whether this is a

school-level or district-level failing is unclear, but teachers did request more professional

development opportunities as a form of content area support.


Although teachers in the schools included in this study described their administrators as

being great providers of resources, teachers felt that one resource in particular was in short

supply: technology. Teachers feel that there is never enough technology for what they need to

do. This mention of technology extended to both hardware issues, such as the number of

functional computers, and to infrastructure issues, such as the capacity of the school servers and

whether or not those servers can support the way technology is being used in the classrooms.

Technology is being pushed at the school, district, state, and national levels as a necessary

component to college and career readiness, so when teachers want to get on board and implement

technology into their classrooms, this initiative will be stunted if the technology resources are

incapable of supporting it. Several teachers in one school in particular mentioned how their

administrators helped them search for, apply to, and receive grants for technology that made a

real difference for them in the classroom.

Several teachers requested that their administrators hold students more accountable for

their work. Holding students more accountable was only mentioned as an intentional practice of

administrators in one of the six schools included in the study. In that school, students are

assigned academic detention if they are not making sustained progress in the classroom as

determined by their previously demonstrated capacity for academic performance. The

educational climate in Tennessee in 2015 is one that is focused on teacher accountability, and

this focus is making teachers feel threatened. Teachers feel that one step that could be taken by

their administrators is to make an effort to put some level of accountability on the students as

well. Although teachers who mentioned student accountability did not expressly state in what

ways they felt students were not being held accountable or how they should be held accountable,

some teachers mentioned that administrators will ask them to change grades when students or


their parents complain about low or failing grades. If this is common practice, it would definitely

be a contributing factor in making a teacher feel that students are not being held accountable for

their performance in the classroom.

Inconsistency of experience. When it comes to student discipline, teachers feel that the

way in which discipline is being handled at their schools is insufficient. Several teachers felt that

not enough was being done to support teachers in a way that would keep their classrooms free of

disruption. They feel that they are asked to do more and more with discipline within the

classroom, which results in lost instructional time. Therefore, teachers want more support with

student discipline.

Teachers also want more opportunities for collaboration in the form of designated time

built in specifically for it or at least common planning periods with teachers with whom they

should be able to collaborate (grade-level, content area, etc.). Although support with

collaboration was praised as something that is already happening in these schools, the teachers

value it and want more of it.

Teachers want more non-evaluative feedback. While some schools have initiated school-

wide practice of non-evaluative feedback, others were praised by the teachers for the increased

frequency of observations in the form of walkthroughs, which are accompanied by coaching and

mentoring, but which are still tied to evaluations. Still others expressed that their assistant

principals were providing non-evaluative feedback and coaching but that they would like to see

more of it. Thus, some teachers even within the same school shared vastly different experiences

with the existence or the frequency of the existence of non-evaluative feedback in the form of

coaching or mentoring.


Like with student discipline, collaboration time, and providing non-evaluative feedback,

modeling teaching strategies was mentioned as a behavior in which administrators are already

engaging within each of these school contexts, but teachers still listed it as something that is

either not being done or needs to be done more frequently. Teachers want to see administrators

be willing to teach a model lesson in the classroom. Although there was no spoken tone to

accompany these remarks provided in writing in response to the questionnaire, several of the

responses included a tone that implied a challenge with a bit of bitterness and resentment. When

coached, some of the teachers get defensive because they feel that what they are being asked to

do is either unreasonable or incredibly challenging to accomplish in the classroom, so they want

to see the administrators try to do it to determine whether it’s possible to succeed in practice.

This defensive attitude was spoken to by one of the interview participants in a school

with a coaching initiative who said that while she feels very supported by her assistant principal

who worked hard to build a rapport with her, other teachers in the building feel that the feedback

provided them by their assistant principals comes off as somewhat hostile and aggressive, and

those teachers feel attacked. Teachers from the same school building, with the same principals,

listed some administrator behaviors as being present and working while others listed them as

absent and desired. This could be due to the variance in the strength of the relationship between

the administrator and the individual teachers or an inconsistency among the behaviors of

assistant principals within the same school.

Relationship to Previous Research

Several of the researchers’ findings were consistent with those from previous research

studies. The findings most closely aligned with those of research studies conducted specifically


at the high school level, but some of them were consistent with those from research studies

measuring instructional leadership, and even just leadership in general, at all grade levels.

Research question 1. In research question 1, the researchers were looking to see how

Tennessee teachers, administrators, and superintendents in effective high schools define


Definition of instructional leadership. The behaviors provided by the research

participants, especially those behaviors occurring with the greatest frequency, all aligned to

behaviors and ideals expressed within the four principles set forth in the Tennessee Instructional

Leadership Standards as well as the six set forth in the ISLLC standards. The findings also help

add to the understanding of these principles by demonstrating them within the practice of actual

instructional leaders of high-performing Tennessee high schools. Additionally, the findings serve

to emphasize the importance of some of these over others, based on the perceptions of teachers

and administrators, so that practicing instructional leaders may focus their efforts. When

compared with the 21 responsibilities set forth by Marzano et al. (2005), the behaviors found by

the researchers align with the exception of one frequently occurring behavior: support. The kind

of emotional support the participants detailed in their responses does not easily align with any

one of the 21 responsibilities, although it is arguably a component in three: communication,

culture, and relationships.

Research question 2. In their second research question, the researchers asked what

qualities do effective instructional leaders exhibit. They found that the participants’ responses

closely aligned with research regarding leadership styles, traits of effective leaders, and

behaviors effective instructional leaders engage in.


Leadership styles. Because coaching was the number one instructional leadership

behavior cited by the teacher participants across all school contexts, it is clear that teachers

perceive that instructional leaders are transformational leaders. Northouse (2013) defined

transformational leadership as the ability of a leader to convince people to want to change,

improve, and be led (p. 186), which are all valuable components in a coaching relationship.

Balyer (2012) found results of increased teacher performance and job satisfaction in the presence

of transformational leaders (p. 588), and these same results were found in the schools from

which data were collected. When teachers were asked why their schools were successful, they

attributed that success to the school leadership.

The other major component of leadership in the educational setting, known as distributed

leadership, was present in all of the schools included. Spillane (2005) described distributed

leadership as school leadership that is not about one leader but is about multiple individuals with

various skills and abilities (p. 143). Regardless of whether those various skills and abilities

varied along the lines of content area or leadership tasks, the leadership team in all of these

schools were comprised of individuals who complemented one another in skills and abilities in

some way.

Traits of effective instructional leaders. In their research, Kouzes and Posner (2012)

found that the same 20 traits have shown up in the same rank order when people have been asked

to give their top seven ideal traits for leaders. The top 10 of those traits are the following:

1. Honest

2. Forward-looking

3. Competent

4. Inspiring


5. Intelligent

6. Broad-minded

7. Fair-minded

8. Dependable

9. Supportive

10. Straightforward (p. 34)

The participants in this study gave similar responses when describing the traits possessed by

actual leaders in their schools. The top 10 of those traits are provided:

1. Supportive

2. Knowledgeable

3. Caring

4. Dedicated/driven

5. Approachable

6. Energetic

7. Positive

8. Understanding

9. Fair

10. Honest

The response knowledgeable is comparable to both competent and intelligent since teachers also

said that they value knowledge in instructional leaders because it enables those leaders to

successfully coach them. This knowledge is therefore necessary for instructional leaders to be

competent in their roles. Interestingly, honest, while the highest on the list provided by Kouzes

and Posner, is number 10 in the list provided by teacher participants. Because it is it still in the


top 10, it maintains a high rank, but the difference is worth noting. It is possible that honesty in

the business world is harder to come by than in a service industry, such as education, making it

top the list of ideal traits in Kouzes and Posner’s business-dominated research study.

The response supportive also showed similar differences, though flipped. Supportive was

low on Kouzes and Posner’s list, but it ranked number one in the list of traits supplied by the

teachers in this study. The need for leaders to be more supportive in education is likely a task-

related difference. Because the business of education is people, and people are unpredictable,

teachers may encounter a wide range of experiences on any given day, which can be emotionally

and physically draining. Also, because teachers are providing constant support for their students,

they seek that same support from their leaders as a way of modeling expectations.

Behaviors of effective instructional leaders.

Behaviors linked to student achievement. The administrator behaviors most frequently

occurring in the participant responses were also those found by Marzano et al. (2005) to be

highly correlated with student achievement, though with differing ranks in order of importance.

Although Marzano, et al. (2005) found situational awareness to be the highest correlating

behavior with student achievement, in this study, coaching (through observations and feedback)

was the most frequently occurring response when teachers were asked what helps them to

improve their instruction. The researchers of that meta-analysis described situational awareness

as the “leaders’ awareness of the details and the under-currents regarding the functioning of the

school and their use of this information to address current and potential problems” (p. 60). They

further described this as the ability to predict opportunities and threats, especially threats relating

to feelings of discord among the faculty and what situations or circumstances contribute to those

feelings (p. 60). This understanding of situational awareness closely aligns with several findings


of this study, including the most frequently cited trait in this study—supportive—especially as it

relates to the expectation that administrators provide emotional support. It also aligns with the

behaviors listens and innovates, which were most frequently attributed to executive principals in

this study. Therefore, it appears that situational awareness is a responsibility most frequently

engaged in by executive principals. The majority of the studies in the Marzano et al. (2005)

meta-analysis were conducted at the elementary level, and this study was conducted only in high

schools, which may explain why coaching, which was more frequently attributed to assistant

principals, occurred more frequently in the responses of this study than those aforementioned

components of situational awareness.

Coaching most closely aligns with Marzano et al.’s (2005) monitoring/evaluating

behavior, which in their study was ranked fifth in its correlation with student achievement.

Situational awareness (.33) and monitoring/evaluating (.27) differ from one another in their

correlation by .06, which means they were both found to be important.

Another difference was with resources. The response, resources, was the third most

frequently occurring administrator behavior in the data from teachers, but it was the eighth

highest ranked responsibility with a correlation of .25. Because this study was using high-

performance, which is measured by student growth, rather than student achievement, which is

measured by test scores, the differing results may be attributable to those different metrics for

effectiveness. Another contributing factor may be the differing perceptions of teachers and

administrators. Although certain behaviors may be highly valued by teachers, administrators do

not equally value them. So although the administrators engage in these behaviors, they are not

engaging in them with the frequency that teachers would prefer. This explanation would also


account for why teachers within the same school listed the same administrator behaviors as those

in which administrators are engaging and those in which administrators need to be engaging.

Behaviors specific to instructional leaders at the secondary level. Just like Stacey (2001)

found in a study of “Blue Ribbon” high schools in Chicago, executive principals are absolutely

distributing the instructional leadership roles out to assistant principals and, in some cases,

department heads. However, unlike Garrard’s (2013) case study of assistant principals in

Northern California high schools, assistant principals from this study feel they have a very

significant instructional leadership role, even when it comes to content and curriculum and

especially when it comes to providing teachers with feedback and with suggestions for general

teaching strategies or best practices. One exception to this increased role, in this particular kind

of instructional leadership, did appear in the responses from teachers and administrators from

one school in which the teachers said their administrators support teacher instruction more

through finding the resources the teachers need than by being the resources the teachers need.

The findings concerning the importance of framing school goals were consistent with the

findings in previous research studies conducted at high-achieving or high-performing high

schools. Teachers in this study expressed how important it was that administrators, the executive

principal in particular, set high expectations and goals for the faculty.

Interestingly, the results of this study were not consistent with those of Brown (1991),

Garrard (2013), Johnson (2006), and McCier (2003) concerning the protection of instructional

time. This behavior was not mentioned consistently across all schools. Protecting instructional

time was mentioned as an important administrator behavior by both teachers and administrators

in only one school, and that school had the lowest percentage of students with low

socioeconomic status. In fact, protecting instructional time, in the form of maintaining student


discipline, was a frequently cited behavior in response to what teachers would like to see their

administrators do more. Therefore, the results indicate that it is ideal for administrators to protect

instructional time, but it is not necessary for high performance.

A common theme in previous studies and in the results of this study is the provision of

non-evaluative feedback. As it was in the studies of Garrard (2013), Stacey (2001), and

Schneider (2006), and in Snyder’s (1981) conceptual model of the future of clinical supervision,

providing non-evaluative feedback was a behavior that the teacher participants valued and a

behavior in which the administrator participants were engaging, which contributed to high

teacher and student performance.

Relation of other findings to previous research. The researchers also found similar

results in topics tangentially related to instructional leadership, especially in how those

instructional leaders develop their skills.

Backgrounds of effective school leaders. Ballou and Podgursky (1995) found that

teaching experience was the only prior professional or educational experience that was linked to

increased effectiveness (p. 248). Likewise, teaching experience was the only background

experience cited by administrators in all three school contexts as a contributor to their success as

instructional leaders.

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion of research question 1. By defining the practice of instructional leadership

as focusing on the growth and development of teachers through non-evaluative coaching and

mentoring, while also providing resources; professional development; financial, personal, and

instructional support; and acquiring, analyzing, and using data for the purposes of improving

instruction, TOSS may inform their superintendents so that they can more adequately identify


and hire instructional leaders. Superintendents will be able to focus clearly on what they are

looking for, and hopefully this will aid in their hiring of successful instructional leaders.

This definition can also be useful to current high school and aspiring high school

administrators. Instructional leadership is a buzzword within the educational sphere at the

present time, and this definition will provide clarity and consensus. Principals and aspiring

principals can use this definition to help guide their practice. The ISLLC standards and the TILS

both provide a framework for understanding the many facets of school-level leadership, but they

do not help administrators to prioritize their time and determine what job-related tasks will reap

the greatest rewards in regard to student improvement. By defining instructional leadership first

and foremost as the practice of growing and developing teachers, while still mentioning the

ancillary administrative tasks supporting that endeavor, current and future administrators can

develop a sense of direction that will enable them to better increase student achievement in their

schools.

A major component of this definition is the non-evaluative piece. It would appear based

on the responses of the participants that teacher growth occurs in an environment of trust. Trust

is lost in an evaluative setting. The researchers encourage administrators to engage in

transparent, non-evaluative observation and feedback.

Discussion of research question 2 – traits. It would appear based on this trait analysis

that an effective administrator would have characteristics of all four categories, with an emphasis

on those traits that imply a personal level of care and concern for the faculty. It is the opinion of

the researchers that characteristics in all four categories (traits implying efficiency of execution,

traits implying a dedication to ethical and productive behavior, traits implying a personal level of


care and concern for faculty, and traits implying a level of commitment to the work) are

necessary, but there are multiple traits that are encompassed in each category.

In most of the previous studies and research conducted concerning traits of effective

leaders, the traits are often generated based on what followers want in their ideal leader. Because

the researchers asked participants to identify traits of an actual individual, whom they consider to

be the most effective instructional leader, the researchers believe the traits generated are very

grounded, practical, and relevant to the nature of the work in education. Although there were

several similarities between the data collected in this study and the data collected in other

business-focused studies, the traits identified in this study demonstrate exactly how personally

invested teachers are in their work and how that personal investment necessitates a tremendous

amount of emotional support from their leaders. When the product of an organization is an

autonomous human being, such as it is in education, it is more difficult for employees to detach

themselves emotionally from the work, which is why they seek support first and foremost. This

emotional investment also explains why teachers appreciate it when their leaders are positive,

caring, and understanding, and the teachers’ appreciation for dedication in their leaders makes

sense; teachers want to know that administrators are just as invested in these students as the

teachers are.

Discussion of research question 2 – behaviors. As was found in previous studies,

teachers are more successful when they are coached by instructional leaders who provide them

with non-evaluative feedback. This was found to be the most frequently cited behavior of

effective instructional leaders, but it is also important to note that it was accompanied by several

material behaviors that help teachers to create and sustain a classroom environment that is

conducive to learning. Teachers can be knowledgeable, well-trained, and intellectually


stimulated, but they still need material and emotional support as well if they are going to achieve

maximum effectiveness.

Another implication of this research is in the difference between the two administrator

roles. Previous studies of instructional leadership in secondary schools have noted the

differences in instructional leadership behaviors between executive principals and assistant

principals. As shown in previous studies and in this study as well, when high student

achievement and/or growth was a factor in the selection of schools to be included in a research

sample, assistant principals were active participants in intentional instructional leadership

activities in those high-performing schools. The results of these studies would indicate that

assistant principals play an important role in instructional leadership. If TOSS is making

recommendations for hiring assistant principals as instructional leaders, then candidates who

demonstrate intellectual and material behaviors should be prioritized because teachers consider

assistant principals to be the experts who are helping teachers grow in their effectiveness. If

TOSS is making recommendations for hiring executive principals as instructional leaders, then

candidates demonstrating emotional behaviors should be prioritized. Teachers appreciate

executive principals who are inspiring visionaries who will set goals that demonstrate dedication

to high expectations. They want to be motivated, and they want a strong, positive school culture,

and they attribute these outcomes to the work of the executive principal. Different roles in the

school building lend themselves to a prioritization of certain behaviors over others, and the

different skills needed for these roles should be considered in the hiring process.

Discussion of other findings. Because teachers are often served by different assistant

principals within the building, a high school’s weak spot will always be with the teachers who

are served by the assistant principal who is the least effective in instructional leadership. In order


to meet the needs of the TEAM rubric and even include non-evaluative coaching observations,

schools have evenly distributed the role of conducting these observations among the assistant

principals in the building. In some buildings, where teachers have described their assistant

principals as serving different roles, such as curriculum, discipline, and athletics, only a tiny

percentage of the teachers are being coached or evaluated by administrators who have strengths

in curriculum and instruction. Consequently, the teachers served by those one or two assistant

principals feel tremendously supported in the area of instruction, but the others feel that they

have to seek out help elsewhere from district resources, department heads, or by observing other

teachers both inside and outside of the district. Therefore, sometimes the inconsistency of

experience with instructional leadership is because assistant principals are hired because of their

complementary skillsets, with regard to certain management functions, but are expected to play

an instructional leadership role whether they have a talent for it or not.

Other times, the inconsistency of experience is not with instruction but is in areas

teachers feel are necessary supports for instruction, such as a discipline. In some schools, all of

the assistant principals have instructional backgrounds in different core content areas, and

teachers are assigned to those assistant principals based on what they teach. In this model, all

core content teachers are receiving targeted support in instruction with which they are very

satisfied. However, those assistant principals also tend to be in charge of student discipline for

those same teachers whether those assistant principals have an interest in student discipline or

not. These teacher assignments create discrepancies in how student discipline is addressed from

classroom to classroom based on differing discipline philosophies or differing degrees of a sense

of responsibility for student discipline among the assistant principals. Schools will assign

assistant principals all of these roles matched to different teachers for several reasons. Sometimes


it is done in an effort to create small learning communities within a school, and sometimes it is

for the professional development of the administrators in order for them to gain experience with

the wide range of administrator tasks for their advancement to an executive principal role. Other

times it is a way of making things fair for assistant principals so that no individual assistant

principal feels that only he or she has to engage in the most challenging tasks. Sometimes, this

type of assigning system is even looked at as a practical way of distributing responsibility to

ensure everything that needs to get done in fact does. Regardless of why it happens, teachers

within the same school are often not receiving the same amount of support.

Recommendations For Practice

In this study, the researchers defined instructional leadership and investigated the

necessary qualities of an instructional leader. Through the literature review, the questionnaire,

and the interviews, the researchers developed a series of recommendations for TOSS to assist

them in finding and hiring instructional leaders for high schools in Tennessee.

1. High school teachers need more local support and non-evaluative feedback from their

building leadership team.

The first recommendation stems from what the researchers found to be the administrative

trait and behavior most often cited as contributors to teachers’ effectiveness and success in the

classroom, which are supportive and provides feedback, respectively. In successful schools that

are showing sustained growth, administrators are providing teachers with emotional support and

frequent, non-evaluative feedback.

2. Teachers want to be coached, so hiring administrators who are great communicators

while also knowledgeable concerning content and best practices is encouraged.


The second recommendation is for administrative hiring practices to reflect the need teachers

have for the coaching (observations and feedback) mentioned in the first recommendation. If

administrators who are conducting evaluations or non-evaluative observations do not have a

strong understanding of strategies and best practices then they will not be able to help their

teachers be more effective in the classroom.

3. When hiring an instructional leader, it is important to hire someone who appreciates the

value of relationships. Coaching cannot occur without building relationships.

The third recommendation ties in with the first two as well; in order for teachers to be

receptive to the idea of being coached and receiving frequent feedback, they must have a positive

relationship and good rapport with the administrator conducting those observations. These kinds

of positive relationships must be built intentionally; they do not just happen. Consequently,

hiring entities should seek out administrative candidates who clearly know the importance and

value of relationships.

4. In high schools, those who engage in an instructional leader role should possess the skills

of an instructional leader. Essentially, administrators hired for their skills in other areas

should not also be the de facto instructional leader. Schools may want to consider

creating administrator support positions, such as deans, to complete non-instructional

tasks.

The fourth recommendation stems from teacher comments about how ineffectual some

administrators are when it comes to coaching teachers. Teachers communicated that not all of the

administrators in the building were qualified to provide them with useful feedback, but all

administrators were serving in that role. Teachers stated that some assistant principals were hired

because they excel as athletic directors or in managing student discipline but they were still


required to conduct evaluations because that responsibility was evenly distributed among the

assistant principals. This meant that teachers who were assigned to these assistant principals who

did not have a strong instructional background did not have as much opportunity to grow

because they received poor quality feedback or stock feedback. In order to give all teachers the

opportunity to grow in their craft, teachers need to be observed and provided feedback by

individuals who have a strong instructional background. Schools may want to consider

restructuring the way they assign responsibilities to assistant principals in order to ensure

teachers are being coached by individuals who are qualified to do so effectively.

5. Districts and/or schools should develop some sort of administrator orientation that

teaches the systems of their new roles and provides them with district-specific contacts

and mentors.

6. Schools should consider allowing administrators who are either new to the role or new to

the school/district an opportunity to shadow another administrator in the building for a

week early on in the first quarter in which they have started their new role. This way they

can learn job-specific tasks as well as be introduced to the school’s norms and cultures.

The fifth and sixth recommendations stem from administrators’ suggestions for how

schools and districts can help newly hired administrators to be more effective in those new roles.

The administrators pointed out that they were very ineffective at their jobs because they lacked

knowledge of the computer systems and programs specific to the role. They also expressed

frustration in their initial confusion surrounding their responsibilities, their understanding of the

way things work in that specific school, and whom to contact if they needed information in

certain areas. The administrators said that an orientation session, job manual, and job shadow


would have helped them to be more effective and make fewer mistakes in the first few months

on the job.

If these recommendations are adhered to, the researchers believe that Tennessee school

districts will have greater success in regard to hiring successful instructional leaders.

Limitations

Potential limitations exist in this study. The sample size was relatively small with 200

teacher participants, 16 administrator participants, and three superintendent participants. In order

to more effectively triangulate the data, more administrator and superintendent participants

would be helpful. Also, the superintendent participants only represented two of the three

contexts: rural and suburban. Superintendents from urban school districts did not participate.

This was caused by the unresponsive nature of the superintendent of the selected urban school

district. The researchers could have possibly avoided this issue. The researchers selected two

urban schools within the same school district to participate in the research study, and this limited

the pool of urban school superintendents.

Another limitation may be unequal participation across the three contexts. The teacher,

administrator, and superintendent participation quantity differed starkly among the three

contexts. If this study were to be conducted again, the researchers would recommend controlling

for an equal sample size between the three contexts.

Other bias could be that the researchers for this study are all currently teachers.

Subconsciously, the researchers may have held predetermined beliefs that may have slanted the

interpretation of the findings.

Finally, this study was limited by time constraints. The timing of the data collection was

a limitation due to the various schools’ testing calendars as well as their spring and summer


breaks. Because the researchers’ data collection overlapped with spring breaks, end-of-year

state-mandated testing windows, final exams, and preparation for graduation, the participation

rate was not as high as it would have been had data been collected in the fall or over the course

of the whole school year. If this study were to be duplicated, the researchers would recommend

that the window for conducting research be expanded beyond the researchers’ five-month

window or be scheduled during the fall semester.

Recommendations for Further Research

The researchers would recommend that this study be conducted to include a larger

sample size – especially for the administrator and superintendent groups. Next, the researchers

would recommend that the number of participants from each context be controlled so that all

contexts are represented equally. Also, the timeframe of the research should be expanded

beyond the five-month window used in this study.

Also, the findings suggested other areas to research more. The researchers would like to

conduct more research regarding the background of effective instructional leaders. Based on the

findings, teaching experience was the only transcendent background quality. The researchers

believe that other background qualities should be investigated. Another element that could

afford to be more adequately researched is the effectiveness of instructional leaders who are not

in administrator roles.

Finally, more research is needed on how to identify the potential for the qualities of

effective instructional leaders. Hiring entities need to know what kinds of indicators and

evidences they should seek out for help in identifying administrator candidates who possess the

desirable traits and who will engage in the desirable behaviors necessary for success in

promoting student growth.


Reflections

Through our research, we have gained insight regarding instructional leadership. As

prospective administrative candidates, these insights will enable us to be more effective when we

embark on the journey that is school-level leadership. Chief among these insights is the

understanding that anyone can be an effective instructional leader so long as he or she possesses

a growth mindset and is willing to put forth the effort to acquire the knowledge and skills

necessary to engage in the administrator behaviors that make the biggest difference in increasing

student achievement. Although participants identified traits as those belonging to effective

instructional leaders, all of those traits were related to behaviors and could therefore be

developed. And although the behaviors mentioned often require specialized knowledge and

skills, dedicated individuals who are determined to be successful, transformational leaders may

acquire the essential knowledge and develop those skills.

Another valuable insight was in regard to teachers’ desire for coaching. None of us

expected to find that these effective administrators were conducting frequent observations, nor

did we expect to find that teachers want those observations. Because observations have so often

been synonymous with evaluations, we have frequently heard fear and unease in the voices of

teachers describing any instance in which an administrator entered the classroom. However, we

have learned through our research that when administrators build strong relationships with the

teachers they coach and engage in frequent, non-evaluative observations, teachers actually want

administrators in their classroom and appreciate the feedback those administrators provide. Fear

only accompanies observations when the only observations being conducted are those that result

in scores. With a coaching model, teachers do not fear the scores they eventually receive because


they are given feedback early and often and are therefore enabled to improve their craft and

make adjustments before they are being officially evaluated.

We have also benefitted from the research process. Through working with TOSS, we

have learned how to take a real-world problem and develop a research project that will help

generate solutions to that problem. Through conducting a review of the literature, we have

learned about how instructional leadership manifests differently in elementary and secondary

settings.

Through our data collection, we learned the value of both patience and persistence—two

characteristics that are desperately needed for success in education. Through the data analysis

process, we learned how to take seemingly disparate thoughts and find their connections while

still being open to having to completely reconstruct frameworks for interpretation. Finally,

through the development of our conclusions and the resulting discussion, we learned how to

apply our new learning to real-world situations, which we hope will aid current and future

practitioners who seek to be effective instructional leaders.


References

Augustine, C., Gonzales, G., Ikemoto, G., Russell, J., Zellman, G., Constant, L., ... Dembosky, J.

(2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems

[Monograph]. Retrieved from Rand Corporation website:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG885.pdf

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1995). What makes a good principal? How teachers assess the

performance of principals. Economics of Education Review, 14, (243-251). Retrieved

from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222503764_What_makes_a_good_principal_Ho

w_teachers_assess_the_performance_of_principals

Balyer, A. (2012). Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: a qualitative

research based on teachers’ perceptions. International Online Journal of Educational

Sciences, 4, 581-591. Retrieved from http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/article/iojes_949.pdf

Brown, R. L. (1991). Critical attributes of instructional leadership in nationally recognized

secondary-level blue ribbon schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9202160)

Bush, T. (2011). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (4th ed.). London,

England: Sage Publications Ltd.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). ISLLC educational leadership policy

standards: 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.

pdf

Doyle, D., & Locke, G. (2014, June). Lacking leaders: The challenges of principal recruitment,


selection, and placement. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

http://edexcellence.net/publications/lacking-leaders-the-challenges-of-principal-

recruitment-selection-and-placement

Fulton, T. T. (2009). High school principal instructional leadership behavior in high and low

need and high and low achievement schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3367945)

http://search.proquest.com/docview/305168802?accountid=56742. (305168802).

Gall, J., Gall, M., & Borg W. (2005) Applying Educational Research: A practical guide (5th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Garcia, L. G. (1999). Principal instructional leadership in majority-minority secondary schools.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 9959432)

Garrard, J. C. T. (2013). Instructional leadership of high school assistant principals in Northern

California. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3599949)

Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture. Leadership, 32(2), 32-35.

Goleman, D. (2006). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 76-

81.

Harris, P.A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J.G. (2009). Research

electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow

process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform, 42,

377-381.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linksy, M. (2009, July). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis.


Harvard Business Review, 87 (7/8), 1-5

Howard-Schwind, M. (2010). Instructional leadership responsibilities of assistant principals in

large Texas high schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses database. (UMI No.3417754)

Johnson, D. M. (2006). Principal instructional leadership and academic performance in

Tennessee high schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses database. (UMI No.3252633)

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning: facilitator guide. Retrieved from

http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/facilitatorguide.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership

influences student learning. Retrieved from Wallace Foundation website:

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-

research/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf

Lesaux, N., Burkhauser, M., & Kelley, J. (2013). Supporting teachers. Principal

Leadership, 14(2) 40-44.

Marshall, A. K. (2005). Instructional leadership: Perceptions of middle school principals and

teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No.3196395)

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: from

research to results. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

McCier, M. H. (2003). A study of high school principals' instructional leadership behaviors as


perceived by teachers in urban comprehensive and magnet high schools. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI

No.3116518)

My Tennessee Public Schools. (n.d.). The superintendent. Retrieved from

http://mytennesseepublicschools.net/theschoolsystem/the-superintendent-or-director-of-

schools/

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2013, November 7). Learning leadership matters: The influence of

innovative school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes.

Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(5), 1-22.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502187

Pierson, A. (2014). What makes a successful principal? Incorporating school principal

background in state and district policy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Rand

Corporation website:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD300/RGSD336/RAN

D_RGSD336.pdf

Principal. (2014). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/principal

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Schindler, K. A. (2012). An analysis of the relationship of perceived principal instructional


leadership behaviors and student academic achievement. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3511656)

Schneider, J. A. (2006). A case study of instructional leadership in a large high school.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No.3211633)

Snyder, K. (April 1981). Clinical supervision in the 1980s. Educational Leadership, 38, 521-

524.

Spillane, J. P. (2005, Winter). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.

Retrieved from http://sdexter.net/courses/589/downloads/SpillaneLeadership05.pdf

Stacey, D. L. (2001). An analysis of the instructional leadership role of principals in selected

Chicago suburban "Blue Ribbon" high schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3015530)

Streshly, W., & Gray, S. (2010). A close look at six super star principals: implications for

educational leadership and administrative programs. CAPEA Education Leadership and

Administration, 20, 116-124. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ965146.pdf

(Original work published 2008)

Tennessee Department of Education (2014a). 2013 reward schools. Retrieved July 29, 2014,

from http://tn.gov/education/data/accountability/reward_schools_2013.shtml

Tennessee Department of Education (2014b). District and school accountability.

Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://tn.gov/education/data/accountability/index.shtml

Tennessee Department of Education. (2014c). Report card: TVAAS composites. Retrieved

January 5, 2015, from http://tn.gov/education/data/report_card/index.shtml

Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents. (2012). 1.000 Vision statement/purpose.


Policy Manual. Retrieved from

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5255656fe4b0fcffc5b8c3b0/t/5273e389e4b0f938a1a2

ae59/1383326601810/1.000.pdf

Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents. (2013). Welcome. Retrieved from

http://www.tosstn.com/welcome/

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2012). Master plan. Retrieved from

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/sbe/attachments/2012-

2020_Master_Plan_Finished_Version.pdf

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2013). February 2013 board meeting.

Retrieved from

http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/2013_documents/February2013_Board_Meeting/III_F_Revisi

on_of_the_Tennessee_Instructional_Leadership_Standards_Attachment.pdf

TVAAS. (2015). Frequently asked questions: What is value-added? Retrieved from

https://tvaas.sas.com/welcome.html

U.S. Department of Education (January 19, 2012). ESEA flexibility request. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/tn.pdf

Wiseman, L., & McKeown, G. (2010). Multipliers: How the best leaders make everyone smarter.

[Kindle Version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com


Appendices

Appendix A

Necessary Qualities of Effective Instructional Leaders Based on the Perceptions of Superintendents, Principals, and Teachers.

INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORMS

Informed Consent Letter for Survey Participants

Introduction:

You are invited to participate in a research study investigating instructional leadership. This study is being conducted by Chris Murray, Yolanda Porter, and Jennifer Sallee, doctoral students in the College of Education at Lipscomb University under the supervision of Dr. Keith Nikolaus, a faculty member in the Department of Graduate Education. You were selected as a possible participant in this research because you meet the criteria of being a superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or teacher. Participants must also be currently employed in a high-performing Tennessee high school as measured by growth scores for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. Please read this form before you agree to be in the study.

Background Information:

The purpose of this study is to determine a definition for an effective instructional leader as perceived by Tennessee stakeholders. Another reason for this study is to develop a framework for identifying the qualities found in effective instructional leaders. Approximately 500 people are expected to participate in this research. Procedures:

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete this questionnaire. The purpose is to collect data from the perspective participants regarding the necessary qualities for an instructional leader to be effective in their respective schools. The questionnaire should take approximately 15-25 minutes to complete.

Risks and Benefits of being in the study:

The study has minimal risks. The benefits to participation are that the data collected will aid in identifying qualities of effective instructional leaders. Effective instructional leaders may increase the effectiveness of those they lead. Knowing these qualities would also benefit current or prospective instructional leaders by serving as a roadmap to school success, thus improving the quality of job performance.


Confidentiality:

Any information obtained in connection with this research study that can identify you will be disclosed only with your permission; your results will be kept confidential. In any written reports or publications, no participant will be identified or identifiable and only group data will be presented in the completed project. The analyzed group data collected from this research will be shared with the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS), but no one besides the researchers will have access to the results of any individual participant’s responses.

We will keep any printed research results in a locked file cabinet in Tennessee where only the researchers named on this form and our advisor will have access to the records while we work on this project. We will finish analyzing the data by July 31, 2015. We will then destroy all original reports and identifying information that can be linked back to you. The tentative completion date for this research is December 2015.

Voluntary nature of the study:

Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your future relations with your current school district or Lipscomb University in any way. If you decide to participate, you are free to stop at any time without affecting these relationships.

Contacts and questions:

If you have other questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researchers, you may also contact Dr. Roger Wiemers, Chair of the Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board, at [email protected].


Informed Consent Letter for Interviewees Introduction:

You are invited to participate in a research study investigating instructional leadership. This study is being conducted by Chris Murray, Yolanda Porter, and Jennifer Sallee, doctoral students in the College of Education at Lipscomb University under the supervision of Dr. Keith Nikolaus, a faculty member in the Department of Graduate Education. You were selected as a possible participant in this research because you meet the criteria of being a superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or teacher. Participants must also be currently employed in a high-performing Tennessee high school as measured by growth scores for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. Please read this form before you agree to be in the study.

Background Information:

The purpose of this study is to determine a definition for an effective instructional leader as perceived by Tennessee stakeholders. Another reason for this study is to develop a framework for identifying the qualities found in effective instructional leaders. Approximately 300 people are expected to participate in this research.

Procedures:

If you decide to participate, you be interviewed about your perceptions of what qualities are necessary for administrators to be effective instructional leaders. The purpose is to collect data from the perspective of participants regarding the necessary qualities for an instructional leader to be effective in their respective schools. The interview should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Risks and Benefits of being in the study:

The study has minimal risks. The benefits to participation are that the data collected will aid in identifying qualities of effective instructional leaders. Effective instructional leaders may increase the effectiveness of those they lead. Knowing these qualities would also benefit current or prospective instructional leaders by serving as a roadmap to school success, thus improving the quality of job performance.

Confidentiality:

Any information obtained in connection with this research study that can identify you will be disclosed only with your permission; your results will be kept confidential. In any written reports or publications, no participant will be identified or identifiable and only group data will be presented in the completed project. The analyzed group data collected from this research will be shared with the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents (TOSS), but no one besides the researchers will have access to the results of any individual participant’s responses.

We will keep any hard copy of the research results in a locked file cabinet in Nashville, Tennessee where only the researchers named on this form and our advisor will have access to the


records while we work on this project. All digital records of data will be password-protected, accessible only by the researchers and their faculty advisor. We will finish analyzing the data by July 31, 2015. We will then destroy all original reports and identifying information that can be linked back to you. The tentative completion date for this research is December 2015.

Voluntary nature of the study:

Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your future relations with your current school district or Lipscomb University in any way. If you decide to participate, you are free to stop at any time without affecting these relationships. A Starbucks gift card in the amount of ten dollars will be provided to you in order to show appreciation for your time.

Contacts and questions:

If you have other questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researchers, you may also contact Dr. Roger Wiemers, Chair of the Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board, at [email protected].

Statement of Consent:

You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that you have read this information and your questions have been answered. Even after signing this form, please know that you may withdraw from the study at any time.

☐ I consent to participate in the study.

� I consent to audio recording in the study.

_______________________________________________________________________

Signature of Participant Date

_______________________________________________________________________

Signature of Researcher Date


Appendix B

Survey Questions

Questionnaire for Superintendents Demographic Questions Name: Gender: Age: Highest degree attained: How long have you served in your current role as superintendent? How many years of school-level administration experience do you have? How many years of teaching experience do you have? Survey Questions In one to three sentences, briefly respond to the following questions. 1. Define what it means for an administrator to be an instructional leader. 2. What role does an administrative candidate’s educational background play in

consideration for an administrative position? 3. What role does an administrative candidate’s career background play in consideration for

an administrative position? 4. What do you look for when you hire a principal? 5. What do you look for when you hire an assistant principal? 6. What are the indicators that a certified employee is ready to move into administration? 7. What are the indicators that an assistant principal is ready to move into an executive

principal role? 8. What are the behaviors of an effective administrator? 9. What traits does an ideal administrative candidate possess? 10. What evidence do you look for to show that an administrative candidate will be an

effective instructional leader? 11. Have you ever hired an administrator who turned out to be very ineffective? If so, what

information did you lack that might have indicated to you that he or she would not be an effective school leader?


Appendix C Questionnaire for Principals

Demographic Questions Name: Gender: Age: Highest degree attained: School: What is your current role in this school? How long have you served in your current role? Have you ever served in any other role at your current school? How many years of school-level administration experience do you have total? How many of those years were as an assistant principal? How many years of teaching experience do you have? What subject and grade level(s) have you taught? Survey Questions 1. What would be three adjectives that you would use to describe yourself in your role as an

administrator? Feel free to clarify the meaning of those adjectives if you feel they may be ambiguous.

2. Which character traits do you possess that you feel are essential to your work as an administrator?

3. As an administrator, how do you define instructional leadership? 4. How effective do you perceive yourself as an instructional leader? Why? 5. How did you develop your instructional leadership skills? 6. What aspect of all of your prior experiences in education best prepared you to be an

instructional leader? Why? 7. What opportunities do you have in your current role to participate in instructional

leadership activities? 8. Do you feel there is anything limiting your opportunities to practice instructional

leadership? If yes, please explain. 9. What is the single most important thing you do to improve instruction? 10. Provide a specific example of how you have helped a teacher to improve his or her

instruction. 11. What is your greatest strength in regard to instructional leadership? 12. What is your greatest weakness in regard to instructional leadership?


Appendix D Questionnaire for Teachers

Demographic Questions Name: Gender: Age: Highest degree attained: School: Subject and Grade level(s) you serve: What is your current role in this school? How long have you served in your current role at this school? Have you ever served in any other role at your current school? How many years of teaching experience do you have total? Survey Questions 1. As a teacher, how do you define instructional leadership? 2. Think of an administrator in your school who most clearly demonstrates your

definition of instructional leadership. What three adjectives would you use to describe this administrator?

3. What role has/have the assistant principal(s) at your school played in instructional leadership?

4. What role has the executive principal played in instructional leadership? 5. How do administrators help you improve instruction in your classroom? 6. Provide a specific example of some action or behavior of a principal or assistant

principal that has helped you improve your classroom instruction. 7. What specific steps could a principal or assistant principal take, that aren’t currently

being taken, to help you improve your classroom instruction?


Appendix E Interview Questions for Principals

1. How do you show care and concern for your teachers? 2. How do you affect teacher morale? 3. How do you model effective instruction? 4. How do you feel about your ability to impact teacher instruction in different content

areas? Why? 5. How do you use your strengths to lead instruction? 6. What methods, if any, do you use to improve your effectiveness as an instructional

leader? 7. What prevents a principal from conducting ample observations and teacher meetings? 8. If you could eliminate one aspect of your job, what would it be and why? 9. If you could create a requirement for all prospective administrators, what would it be and

why?


Appendix F Interview Questions for Teachers

1. How do administrators show care and concern for the faculty? 2. To what extent do you feel the administrators have contributed to your success personally

and to the success of the school as a whole? 3. How do you feel you are supported in your content area? Would you change anything

regarding the way in which you receive content-area support and guidance? 4. From a building leadership perspective, how would you define instructional leadership? 5. What is the single most important thing your assistant/executive principal does to help

improve instruction in your classroom? 6. How could an instructional leader help to improve student test scores in your classroom? 7. How does the role of the assistant principal differ from the executive principal in regard

to instructional leadership? 8. What do you feel are some of the least effective practices of administrators?


Appendix G

Memorandum of Understanding


Appendix H

National Institute of Health “Protecting Human Research Participants” Certificate of

Completion


Appendix I


Appendix J

Author Biographies Jennifer Sallee graduated in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in English from Lipscomb University. While teaching high school English in the Metropolitan Nashville Public School system, she pursued a M.Ed. in Administration and Supervision, which she attained in 2009, and a M.Ed. in Instructional Technology, which she attained in 2011. As a high school teacher, she also served as a Freshman Academy team lead, English department head, and Forensics coach. Seeking experience teaching in middle school, she left MNPS in the fall of 2012 to teach at Brentwood Middle School in the Williamson County Schools system. She currently serves as the English Learner Specialist and Gifted Specialist for Athens Intermediate School in the Athens City School system in Athens, Alabama. She has a passion for data analysis and instructional technology and uses her skills in those areas to help at-risk and underserved students. Chris Murray has taught social studies for Metro Nashville Public Schools since he began his teaching career in 2010, and is currently teaching at Hillsboro High School. He graduated from Wake Forest University (’08) with a B.A. in history and from Middle Tennessee State University (’10) with a M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction. Chris also teaches World History AP and serves as the head wrestling coach at Hillsboro High School. Chris is dedicated to the mission of public education, and looks forward to helping lead schools, teachers, and students to greater success.

Yolanda Porter is the Dean of Students at Bailey STEM Middle Prep. She recently completed twelve years of professional experience working with youth that have emotional, behavioral, and cognitive disabilities. Ten of those twelve years were as an exceptional education teacher in various grade levels and settings in Metro Nashville Public Schools. Her educational background that prepared her for this journey in education began at Tennessee State University where she obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Speech Language Pathology & Audiology, a Master’s degree in Special Education, and an Education Specialist degree in Administration & Supervision.

Yolanda Porter currently serves the community by volunteering at a homeless shelter for women and children and teaches a leadership class at her church. She is the proud mother of two very supportive sons and one grandson. It is because of her purpose in life and her sons that she is very passionate and committed to empowering youth and young adults to be the best they can be personally, spiritually, and professionally.