This paper describes a continuous learning model of principal and superintendent support. The model places a premium on engagement at all levels of the system on shaping a focused culture of instruction within their schools.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-610.
This book shows how principals and other school leaders can develop the skills necessary for teachers to deliver high quality instruction by introducing principals to a five-part model of effective instruction.
Fink, S., & Markholt, A. (2011). Leading for instructional improvement: How successful leaders develop teaching and learning expertise. John Wiley & Sons.
This study draws on in-person observations of principals collected over full school days over two different school years in a large, urban district to investigate how principals allocate their time across different instructional leadership tasks, and how instructional time use is associated with school effectiveness.
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2012, November). What is effective instructional leadership? Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. In Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management annual meeting, November.
This study examines the associations between leadership behaviors and student achievement gains using a unique data source: in-person, full-day observations of principals collected over three school years. The study finds that principals’ time spent broadly on instructional functions does not predict student achievement growth. Time spent on informal classroom walkthroughs negatively predicts student growth, particularly in high schools.
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 0013189X13510020.
This study analyzed three urban districts' efforts to improve the instructional quality and performance of their schools. The study also assessed the efforts made in four: (1) promoting the instructional leadership of principals; (2) supporting the professional learning of teachers, in particular through school-based coaching models; (3) specifying curriculum; (4) and promoting data-based decision making for planning and instructional improvement.
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning. RAND Corporation.
This book examines principal leadership with the focus on formative assessment. The book looks at efforts to improve student performance through Formative Classroom Walkthoughs.
Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2015). Formative classroom walkthroughs: How principals and teachers collaborate to raise student achievement. ASCD.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relative impact of different types of leadership on students’ academic and nonacademic outcomes.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly.
This study examines the School Administration Manager (SAM) project, that focused on changing the conditions in schools that prevent principals from devoting more time to instructional leadership.
Turnbull, B. J., Haslam, M. B., Arcaira, E. R., Riley, D. L., Sinclair, B., & Coleman, S. (2009). Evaluation of the school administration manager project. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.