Content area
Full text
The Effective Schools movement turned 25 in 1991. Through its history, all Effective Schools research studies (elementary, middle, secondary) have identified instructional leadership as critical.
The study of leadership in Effective Schools suggests, first, that they are led by individuals with the vision that learning in a democracy must be inclusive--learning for all. Second, these individuals can communicate this vision to others in the school so they come to share the vision and commitment. The vision of principals cannot endure unless the leader can create a critical mass of support for it among those helping implement it. If the leader has teachers who also believe that schools in a democratic society must be committed to learning for all, the journey is a bit easier, progress likely to be realized more quickly.
Then why is instructional leadership one of the more controversial characteristics of Effective Schools research? Some hypotheses on this are grounded in honest disagreement about "how things should be," others in misunderstanding of what leadership is and how it works.
A common misunderstanding is that strong instructional leadership means the principal runs the school and teachers like a tyrannical slaveholder. Those who think this have not kept up with literature on effective leadership. Effective leaders lead through commitment, not authority. People follow because they share the leaders' dreams, not because they are afraid.
A second misunderstanding involves professional autonomy and individual freedoms. These critics think a teacher who publicly becomes part of the principal's shared vision abdicates professional autonomy. This is misguided, not doing justice...