Introduction
The thesis and this ensuing report come as a result my reflecting on the words of Margaret Wheatley (1994/1996); seeking order from chaos and considering relationships; by researching and observing education through the lenses of such people as Michael Fullan (191/1992/1996/1997a/1997b/1998); by considering the work of Edward De Bono (1998) who so succinctly stated that “most of the mistakes in thinking are not mistakes of logic at all but mistakes of perception”.  Most importantly, this report on elementary principals’ understanding of their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction comes as a result of listening to my own questions, the questions and stories of my participants, seeking to understand, and listening to what is wanting to emerge in curriculum leadership and then having the courage to do what is required.

This report is a thesis summary written in a style that poses reflective questions for those who read it.  The questions are intended as templates for thinking, as a place for others to begin, or continue, their own thinking about the critical role principals play as leaders of curriculum and instruction.  In doing this, it is my hope these questions will find a place in the dialogues others hold about educational leadership - dialogue being the process where new and shared insights occur.

The literature review completed during my study has been woven among the stories of my participants in the hope that the findings of other scholars will be reflected in the daily realities expressed about the principalship.

Recommendations and implications arising as a result of my study indicate the human aspects of the role of principal need to be considered prior to all other aspects of this position.  Once recognized, principals need time to listen to and speak about curriculum issues, to share their definitions of curriculum, to spend time on curriculum and instruction at administrators’ meetings, and, indirectly and directly, in their schools.

I explored six principals’ understandings of their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction by examining several areas.  These are highlighted in Section One.  Section Two offers highlights from my research findings while Section Three describes recommendations found in more detail in my thesis.
 
Back to Table of Contents

The participants in this study reported definitions as diverse as those frequently found in the literature, however, all used the word curriculum when referring to the curriculum guides produced by the provincial Department of Education, and the various commercially and locally developed programs used in classrooms.  All in all, there appears to be an emerging paradigm about curriculum that holds to the broadest definitions of this term (Clifford et al, 1992).
 
The work of three leading researchers sheds an interesting light on the definition of curriculum while adding another dimension to this term when they explore types of curricula.  The work of Kanpol, Weisz and Eisner (Kanpol, 1990) is highlighted below:

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Saskatchewan Education’s DIME model defines curriculum development in four quadrants: design, implementation, maintenance and evaluation.  Participants in this study made frequent references to the quadrants in this model as they spoke about curriculum and instructional leadership in their schools.  Through their definitions of curriculum, their references to the DIME model, and their beliefs about the purpose of school, participants appeared to be offering evidence of adhering to a variety of orientations toward curriculum.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Orientations Toward Curriculum
Curriculum can be seen through various lenses.  Dukacz et al. (1980) developed a profile indicator to assist people in understanding how they approach curriculum.  This profile, along with the reported definitions of curriculum, and the reported purposes of school, was used to partially determine the curricular orientations of the participants in this research study.  Since it was not feasible to have each participant complete the Dukacz profile, comments made during the interviews were used as data to determine each person’s orientation.

Understanding the various orientations is useful when communicating with others about curriculum and instruction issues.  Knowing that others may be “seeing” things differently than you may help in the communication process of a curriculum and instructional leader.  A question prominent in slang “lingo” a few years ago - “Where are you coming from?” - asked a person to declare his or her assumptions.  Eisner and Vallance describe five statements of position, listed below, in their book, Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum (1974).  Each conception is a way of viewing the curriculum.
 
Back to Table of Contents

Here, the school would never offer a lock-step curriculum that would be useful in some distant future.  Rather, it would offer curriculum that is exciting, purposeful, and fulfilling in the student’s present life.   Participants in this study all made reference to the strong battery of curricula as designed and delivered by the provincial Department of Education and their local school division.  Curricula from Saskatchewan do not reflect this type of orientation by any means.  This could be one reason why principals working with these documents do not express a preference for this orientation.
 
Back to Table of Contents

The social reconstruction view occurs as two types: adaptive  and change.  The adaptive  version attests that society is in constant change, and that schools should help students adapt to meet these changing conditions.   This was clearly a view that one participant held when he stated that, “curriculum is not static - it’s fluid.  It’s always changing because of the nature of our environment and the nature of society today” and that “the purpose [of school] is to prepare young people for the future” (BM).  Another participant also showed evidence of coming from this perspective when he commented that “schools are a function of society and society really dictates what schools do”(CB).

The change version of this orientation claims that social changes occur when schools provide the impetus and leadership necessary to affect changes.  Schools, from this perspective, should exemplify the desired social ends and educate students to become critically aware citizens who are cognizant of social change.
 
Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents
 
Understandings of Leadership
Hearing the participants’ definitions of leadership and knowing, to some degree, their orientations toward curriculum helps to understand how they view their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction in schools.  Through their voices, then, I offer their descriptions of the term leadership:

leadership is… be prepared to put in time. …the (second) thing I’d throw in there… is you have to have an ability, or at least a willingness to work with people - to listen, to You may have the greatest vision in the world.  If you can’t articulate it, if you can’t work with people,  … Vision to me is critical. …  (BG)
[Leadership is] the ability to see beyond today. …  It involves being able to work towards tomorrow and having the skills to bring along with you the participants that need to be involved.  … if something stops because the leader is gone, then you didn’t have really true leadership.  You had someone driving the ship and when they left they took the keys. … if you’ve really got leadership going on in your school or leadership in the administrator, it has to be  because there’s a perceived need and it needs to keep going on and on and on after the individual is gone.   (JW)

I don’t consider myself to be a leader.  I’ve been given the position of principal.  I see myself as a coordinator.  We all have a common mission and the beauty of this job is the people I get to work with are professionals and 99% of them are dedicated and want to do well as teachers and create a good school.  That’s just my simple faith in people, … The key in leadership is to listen, support and empower.  (CP)

Leadership is such a nebulous sort of thing. …there’s a real balance in being a good leader.  You have to take the time and the energy to listen to the people that you’re working with and hear what they’re saying, understand some of what goes along with being human and working in this field, … So you have to be able to balance those management/building/non-people kinds of things and issues with the people issues in your building.  And if you can find that kind of balance, then I think you’re probably set and should go anywhere.   (BW)

I think leadership itself is a combination of the skills and the knowledge and the personality that others will follow.  You have to have a combination of abilities and knowledge and a personality that other people feel comfortable with and feel that you are the kind of a person that they will work for …for me an effective leader is one who can adapt to the needs of the situation … You’re going to have a preferred style of leadership, but the style of leadership you need to use in some situations may not be the same, … and so you make changes.  (BM)

…You have to feel ok with who you are because at the end of the day, the staff is all gone, you sit here by yourself.  You’ve dealt with all of the ills of the world.  Everybody has dumped on you.   So what are you going to do to survive that night?  For me, you know, you go for a run, you get outside, you look at the sky. …its called reflective practice.  (BG)

Someone will always be dissatisfied with the leader’s performance.  Relaxation exercises, physical fitness, recalling a higher purpose, teaming up with a supportive peer, separating self from role, and ignoring the temptation to get even are some of the remedies… .   (Fullan, 1998, p. 9)

Back to Table of Contents
 
Working with Others to Lead Curriculum and Instruction
All the participants reported working closely with others and relying heavily on the expertise, leadership, and support of these people in their respective schools.  Most often, these people were the teachers within their buildings.
 
Back to Table of Contents

The key ingredient is the teaching staff, the quality of the teachers, the professionals and the knowledge that they have.  If that is a given in any building that you’re in, then you’re off to the races.  You need people, you need the kind of people that are willing to share, to take risks, to work together, who are flexible, and who really care about kids … nothing happens if you don’t have [them].  (BM)

One principal in my study indicated that she relied on teachers to share their expertise when it came to answering parents’ questions about curriculum.

If there’s a new curriculum that comes out I just can’t possibly keep up on it.  I don’t even try.  I have lots of experts right here in this building.  So, if somebody wants to know something about the grade one mathematics curriculum, I’ll send them to see [teacher A] or [teacher B] or [teacher C] because they know.  And if I want to know something, then I’ll go and ask them.  (BW)

I’m not the expert on any one curriculum area, but I have to know where to go to get the answers and to find the support that teachers need and … to be the buffer with parents … and also to be the advocate for the changes that occur with my public, … the parent group.  (BM)

[As stewards] in a learning organization, leaders may start by pursuing their own vision, but as they learn to listen carefully to others’ visions, they begin to see that their own personal vision is part of something larger.  This does not diminish any leader’s sense of responsibility for the vision - if anything it deepens it.  (p.352)

All you have to do is use your ears.   And [teachers will] tell you… if you listen, you’ll hear what needs to be changed or what’s needed in a school because they’ll tell you.  And then you make your plan based on what they told you … (CP).

If I work with a teacher three years and they’re still not doing anything with math manipulatives, then I would become more directive.  For instance, I said to a teacher this year, “You’re going to have to get your oar in the water.  You’re a late adopter”  …  (CB)

As a principal, what I want to do is help my teachers find as many ways as possible … to do the curriculum as they can.   So, lots of teachers come and they don’t have the ideas or the strategies themselves, so I see that part of my job as principal is to help them get those in what ever way I can. … Through me saying “Yes, it’s ok for you to do things that way” I will give teachers permission.  Sometimes teachers become really driven by curriculum and they forget the kids.  So, then I would work the other way with those teachers.  I would explain to them “It’s ok if you can not get to that geometry unit this year.  Don’t worry about that.  The important thing is that you teach those kids so that they understand .  (BW)

Part of the whole thing of being a curriculum leader and instructional leader is to use the instructional time you have and the curriculum you have to solve the problems that you’ve got. … or help the teacher do the analysis.  And say, or maybe there’s some other strategies I could use here or maybe its too loosey-goosey.  I maybe have to put them back in rows for a while.  They can’t handle group situations.  You see teachers doing that all the time. …  (BM)

In my role, I try to make myself familiar with curriculum. I listen to what the consultants say or what the teachers say about what they need and then try to make everything get there for them. … You need to give them what they want otherwise they get frustrated and the faster you get it to them, the better. … in terms of instructional leader … try your best to provide what they need and listen to their concerns.   … I go in to some teachers who I consider to be blockers and say, “Give it a try”.   (CP)

I’ll …check their learning styles so that we can adapt to their learning styles because effective teaching is us changing; the leaders changing. … that’s the leadership I offer to curriculum , to lead the teacher who is just putting down ‘not meeting expectations’.  No regular program? “Well have you thought perhaps that you should change your program?”  And most people say “yes”, well “Ok, tell me then exactly how you have thought and what you’ve been doing” which really places people in a spot.  It’s a fair question to ask.  It’s a question a good leader should ask.  So, that’s one example.  It’s that modeling and pushing people forward.  (BG)

I try to model for teachers,… I think that leadership is modeling. … [I am] developing some structures in our school and taking [teachers] through some experiences where they do some reflection on their role as teachers, as leaders, and then how we as a school can do shared leadership and so I’m modelling teaching with them.  I’ve done some strategies - like I’ve done Think, Pair, Share with them … [And] I constantly keep asking questions of staff.  That’s one way that I think you can be really successful - asking questions.  You [also] have to make people feel a level of discontentment before they will start to even think about changing … (JW)

The vice-principal and I decide when we meet first, beginning of every year.  “What are your strengths?  Well, here’s mine.”   “Here’s mine.” “Good.  You know more about computers than I do, you keep up with the computer curriculum.” …  there’s no way I’m in every classroom.  The vice-principal and I divide those kinds of things up, so, basically, he will have his responsibilities for curriculum and instruction for certain grades and I have mine. …  some vice principals I’ve worked with,  because they’re teaching directly in classrooms, their knowledge of curriculum change is much more relevant than a principal who might have been around for a while.  And with some, I know I’ve relied really heavily on them staying in tune with certain areas and me in others.  So we’ve really divided that role. … as soon as [teachers] know which one of us is in charge, then teachers will go to that person.  (BW)

I know some are more teams than others.  Remember, we don’t have any choice as to who our team members are, so some of us form really good teams and partnerships and some of us don’t.  I’m sure it’s connected  to leadership style - connected to sheer fate too, sometimes.  There were some vice principals I've worked with where we wouldn’t share anything!  We’d have a hard time speaking to one another, so it depends!  It really works  well when you can work as a team … .  (BW)

All of my participants spoke strongly about the importance of recognizing relationships and teamwork in their buildings.  One began his tenure at his current school by starting with the culture, or attitudes, of staff.

What has helped turn this school around has been an attitudinal shift that has allowed the curriculum ideas to come forward and it has allowed the leadership potential of individuals here to come forward, but it’s happened through a shift in the attitude … feeling good about who you are and knowing that when you do things, you can affect things and people in a positive way.  (BG)

[If you] throw out more opportunities eventually somebody will grab them and … now it’s hard to say ‘no’.  Now you’re into it.  Now the ownership begins. … It was key that the staff had to see that first. …We spent many hours at staff meetings … it’s a process of reflective practice that some people don’t want to get into. … After a while it just becomes a norm and it’s just the thing to do.  You just reflect. … You support the personal, but you reflect and you get to the professional.  (BG)

Culturing … First you have to have the trust and respect. … I’m quite willing to work with people and support people and allow them to take risks, make mistakes and fix the problems. … [Teachers] know whether they can trust you.  They know the degree of support you are prepared to give them. … It’s a team thing.  You are all part of it. …If you are prepared to support the teachers…then they will be prepared to take the risks.  If that isn't there, if there is mistrust, any kinds of deception perceived by the teachers, they are not going to want to get involved.  If you are in an environment were the trust is there, then I think the kind of teachers that we have … will step into the fore. … I’m not one of these people that has to have all the power and all the control. … If you’re a control freak, then maybe [these things won’t] happen because people will not take risks.  (BM)

Back to Table of Contents
 
The Importance of Having a Vision
Much has been written about the importance of vision within the realm of organizational leadership (Fullan, 1991/1997a).  Through the stories of the participants, it also seems to be critical to the curriculum and instructional aspect of leadership in a school.

One participant stated that vision is critical to helping a staff focus; to remind them of the focus and direction for the year.  She also believes that a successful leader of curriculum and instruction must be able to act on and live his / her vision for a school.

You have to be able to help people be able to see through the muck.  You know.  Here’s where we’re going - and keep pointing it out. … You’ve got a vision.  You know where you want to go …and for some the path is more direct than others for getting there.  I don’t think you can work without that and you can call it a vision, a theme or whatever.  [I think a] superintendent I would want a principal who walks what they talk.  You have a vision, but you have to live it yourself.  (BW)

Vision is critical to me… People expect you to do things.  They expect you to lead.  So, when you have a vision, lead it! …people need to know what you stand for. … I think the worst thing that could ever happen to me is if I was in a school for a period of time and I walked out and people didn’t know what Blaine George was all about.  I think when I walk in and out of a school, people know what I’m about.  They may not always agree with it, but they know pretty well where I stand on things.  (BG)

One participant seemed to pull the idea of having a personal and a staff vision together.  She talked about having a vision for a school only after she had experienced the culture and needs of the school’s staff and students.  She told me that

I don’t think you can come [into a new school] and have a vision.  You have to be in it, live it.  Your vision for a place evolves once you have a better understanding of what it is you’re experiencing.  And I didn’t know what kind of a school [this] was.  I didn’t know where we needed to be going or moving.  I had some ideas of the kind of a place I would like to be a teacher and work in. … I’m still creating my vision for this school and it’s becoming clearer. … I get these kinds of mind maps going of how I would like to see things function here.  (JW)

You have to know where you’re headed and if you don’t know where you want to go, you’re not going to lead. … You may have the greatest vision in the world.  If you can’t articulate it, if you can’t work with people [you’re in trouble].  (BG)

Back to Table of Contents
 
Activities and Roles Involved in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership
Many studies that have looked at curriculum and instructional leadership have been vague in describing the day-to-day activities principals undertake while fulfilling their role as leaders of these areas.  It is this unclear description that, I believe, leaves these studies lacking in the impact they could have on the evolving understandings principals have about their role as leaders in these areas.

Researchers such as Irwin (1985), Ornstein and Hunkins (1993) and Oliva (1989) are amongst the few who have reported on activities effective principals undertake to support curriculum in their daily jobs.  The findings of these researchers are categorized, synthesized and listed on Figure 1 on the left.  Asterisks (*) indicate items also reported on by participants in this study.  Items on the right reflect additional activities offered by participants during our conversations.  Solely this study’s participants reported on the final category, knowledge.  The list does not indicate the frequency of comments made for each item, but rather indicates a collective reporting by participants.
 

Murphy believes that principals should maintain a keen awareness of the amount of course content.  Murphy stated that when concerned about the amount of course content, principals need to be analyzing student progress and test results.  Participants reported this as an understood activity.   Principals in this study did not comment on keeping an eye open for the types of curricular packages received by students from different racial, ethnic, religious and socioeconomic groups, another of Murphy’s expectations.  Murphy also believes that in this category it is also critical to keep high expectations for all students.  As Ubben and Hughes (1987) stated:

a principal’s beliefs about the ability of all children to learn is extremely important.  In most of the effective schools research findings, principals of effective schools have a strong belief in and commitment to the ability of all children to learn regardless of race, social conditions, or gender.  These values and beliefs are extremely important because staff members will key onto what they believe the principal considers important. (p. 20)

The second category for Murphy is that of academic focus to course work.  This curriculum issue involves not only having teachers complete the required scheduling forms and making unit plans based on curriculum foundational objectives, but principals talking to teachers about the methods through which academic content will be delivered.    Being a common presence in classrooms during instructional time is another method by which Murphy believes the principal can keep abreast of the focus of each classroom.  Participants reported working in these areas, but to a much more specified degree as can be found in the lists offered earlier.

Murphy stated that there needs to be a focus and sequence to all course work.  This sequencing can be done if principals are knowledgeable of the foundational objectives in each curriculum, involve themselves in the long range plans established with or by teachers, and maintain a critical eye to units or topics that do not derive themselves directly from the goals and aims of provincial curricula.  Although participants reported being involved in these types of activities, none indicated that the purpose of such activities was to maintain a focus and sequence to curriculum and instruction.

Murphy contends that there should be a monitoring of the breadth and depth of content in each subject area and grade level.   He believes a balance of breadth and depth is best arrived upon through collaborative discussions.  Again, principals in this study reported dialoguing with teachers about curriculum issues, but did not report that that monitoring the breadth and depth of subject matter was the purpose for these discussions.

Monitoring the differential access to knowledge is a category that Murphy also believes should be attended to by principals - an area that some in Saskatchewan are beginning to call “opportunities to learn”.  Here the principal is called upon to ensure that students of both genders, from various cultural groups, socioeconomic conditions, and learning styles are given equal participatory access to all curriculum areas.  Although participants did not speak directly to this issue, I believe that if probed, participants in this study would see this as a part of their collective description of the purpose of school; to allow individuals to achieve their future goals and find personal satisfaction and success.

Curricular alignment is another of the areas emphasized by Murphy, and by Tyler (1949) in his curriculum rationale.  Here, principals involve themselves in ensuring that there are horizontal links between subject areas and their respective contents.   One participant commented on this being one of his purposes for maintaining a global perspective on the school so that “kids don’t get dinosaurs, dinosaurs, dinosaurs…” (CP).

Murphy noted that the quality of education students receive is only as strong as the course objectives in each subject area, another of his curriculum issues categories.  The skills, knowledge and attitudes as written and required by Saskatchewan’s provincial curricula are designed to enhance quality education.  It is the responsibility of the teacher and principal at the school level to ensure that curriculum objectives are the focus of instruction.  This is likely why participants in this study felt it was so important for them to be familiar with the foundational objectives and philosophy of each curriculum area.  Participation in instruction, observation, planning, and discussion are other successful means by which principals in this study reported being involved in this area.

Murphy’s final curriculum issue is that of monitoring and encouraging a consistency in homework policies.  This was not a reported issue for any of the participants in this study.  It is likely that this is a non-issue for these principals because there is no policy requiring homework in their school division, nor is there overt pressure from the school division’s parent advocacy group for such measures.

Murphy’s categories for curriculum and instructional leadership appear to fall short in the affective arena and do not include the humanistic elements of leadership that participants in this study felt were integrated into all aspects of their role.  As one participant stated it, “everything should be in the same bed” (BW).

It is clear in both of the organizers I have chosen to report this information that the principals involved in this study collectively reported being active in a multitude of ways to play out their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction.   It is also clear that the principals in this study assume a variety of roles in their understanding of leadership in curriculum and instruction.  Oliva (1989) listed a variety of these roles when he described the principalship (Figure 2).  I present his list on the left using asterisks (*) to indicate those roles reported on by participants.  On the right are descriptors that go beyond those cited by Oliva but used by participants to discuss their roles in curriculum and instructional leadership.
 

Figure 2  Roles Undertaken by Curriculum and Instructional Leaders A leader of curriculum and instruction is …    ____ an expert on instruction  _*__a communicator  _*__ a group leader  _*__ a stimulator  _*__ an orienter  _*__ a public relations person  _*__ a change agent  ____ a curriculum expert  _*__ an organizer  _*__ an evaluator  _*__ a coordinator  _*__ a consultant  ____ a researcher  _ *_ a master teacher  _*__ a facilitator  _*__ a cheerleader  _*__ a minister  _*__ a people person  _*__ a perseverer  _*__  a source of knowledge  _*__ a confidant  _*__ a gate keeper  _*__ a guide  _*__ a coach  _*__ an emotional barometer  _*__ a humour agent  _*__ a lover of children  _*__ a global direction setter

 
Back to Table of Contents
 
Priorities Placed on the Leadership of Curriculum and Instruction
“The role of the principals as improvers of instruction … is of such classic, historic importance that it has … remained unquestioned” (Doll, 1982, p. 409).  Pipho noted that “a number of the reform reports published … have pointed out the primacy of the principal’s role in instructional leadership (Pipho in Irwin, 1985, p. 1).  It seems clear that discussion in the literature calls for curriculum and instruction to play a major part in the life of a principal.  What seems unclear is whether or not principals are grabbing hold and acting out this understood aspect of their role.

Discussions with the participants about the importance of curriculum and
instruction in their day proved to be interesting.  All agreed that curriculum and instruction are a critical aspect of their position.  As one summed it up,

[Curriculum is] hugely important to me in this school - hugely important. … Curriculum integrity is absolutely critical to me as a school administrator because I think that’s the kind of thing that keeps us all on the straight and narrow. … Curriculum is a huge thing … in schools because it encompasses all things we do.  (JW)

I believe [curriculum and instruction] need to be high.  Not necessarily at the top, but it needs to be high. … I have to make a conscious effort to keep it there. … I don’t necessarily see myself as doing this really well and I’m being critical of myself as a principal … I have to make a conscious effort to focus on curriculum development and make it closer to the forefront … the more I do that, the greater the implementation will occur. … the day to day routine of managing a school can get in the way of curriculum leadership.  It’s easy to get caught up in the milieu of the school. …The more importance I put on it, the more effective [the school] is.  (CP)

They drive your agenda.  You might have the best plan in the world in terms of getting into people’s classrooms on a given morning to do some developmental supervisions [and] you may never get there. … you have to learn to deal with that.  A lot of things get done at noon hour and after school.  That’s the time when important curriculum issues get dealt with.   (BM)

My goal is always to get into the curriculum and … I can’t get there.  There’s always too many other things coming at you.  It’s not unusual to turn on your machine and have 23 e-mails.  The curriculum is always my goal.  … I can barely manage to get my developmental supervision, my annual supervision summaries…now we’re supposed to be supervising TA's and secretaries.  We’re doing a facilities audit and you’re dealing with suspensions and dealing with policy … there’s some comfort in knowing that your teachers are at least professionals and doing what they need to be doing with curriculum, but it still leaves me feeling as … as lacking in as far as curriculum.  … It’s like receiving a file folder and the file folder is curriculum. … Everyday people keep putting other file folders in front of it for me to deal with and it just moves further and further back on my list.  (JW)

I feel like it should be a little more direct in terms of even sitting down and talking to [teachers] about their needs and about their activities or about looking at workshops at staff meetings might help or planning professional development that’s meaningful to them. … But if I sit back from where I am, I don’t feel I’m being as directly involved as I’d like to be.  (CP)

Part of the answer may lie in administrator training programs.  Part of the answer may lie within the administrative structures school divisions choose to operate.  Participants murmured support at the focus group meeting when one of the principals commented that when his supervisor meets with him, the discussion always focuses on management and facilities issues.  He feels it is up to him to steer the conversation in the direction of children, curriculum, and instruction.  As this participant  intimated, a third possibility may lie in simply sharing a common definition for curriculum and instructional leadership.

We hear at administrator meetings:  “Remember, you are the curriculum leader and the instructional leader in the school.”  And I used to think of that in very narrow terms.  The instructional leader being the one that has to be on top of curriculum and gets that out to the people.  My definition has certainly widened and I don’t know if the definition of those who say it to us is as wide as what mine is. …  (BG)

We’ve become so overwhelmed in our jobs.  It’s hard to be on top of [curriculum and instruction] anymore. …  It is entirely impossible to stay abreast with curriculum as it changes.   We can have the knowledge of the concepts that are in curriculum, as is our responsibility, but … for us to be knowledgeable of each and every lesson?  That is entirely impossible and that’s up to the teachers.  For myself, if I have a general knowledge when I talk to teachers, I use that as a basis. (CB)

I don’t take the full responsibility for [curriculum and instruction].  I don’t know what the curriculum is in detail for every grade level.  I just can’t do that.  If you think you have to be the one that knows everything about everything and you can’t live any other way, I don’t think you should be a principal or a leader of anything because you’ll end up burning yourself out and you’ll have a nervous breakdown.  (BW)

Could it be that principals are not receiving the information they want in order to be effective leaders of curriculum and instruction?  Or perhaps the information is being delivered to principals, but in a fashion that is not conducive to easy access or understanding?  The participants in this study indicated that there were supports and activities they relied on as leaders of curriculum and instruction and that there were other supports that they wish they had.

Participants indicated they work to maintain current knowledge about curriculum and instruction through personal reading, university classes, membership on school division curriculum committees, writing local curriculum documents, listening to teachers, peers, consultants, superintendents, attending professional development opportunities, administrators’ meetings, and observing in teachers’ classrooms.  However, all comments to this effect seemed to contain an unspoken message of unsureness.  Most seemed to be wondering ‘Am I learning what I need to know?’.

All participants commented that they would like to see more time taken at administrators’ meetings to deal with, and spend time talking about, curriculum and instruction issues.  It would be simple to assume that lengthening the time spent on curriculum issues at principals’ meetings would resolve the frustration sensed by principals.  However, this is not the case.  For example, one of my participants is looking for another type of support in his job.  He is asking for information to support people as they work with new curricula.

As an instructional leader, I do not have to know the curriculum for each grade level well.  I have to know how to support people as they try to teach young people and that, to me, means knowing a lot more.  That’s where the time and the change theory and the ability or wanting to take people from one point in their development to another point [comes in].  (BG)

It’s really important that the administration be present and part of inservices [designed for teachers] so that they get the same message as the teachers got.  If I don’t have the same messages, then I’m not necessarily going to be on the same page and I’m not going to understand what their concerns are.  (BM)

we used to funnel a lot of things through principals - curriculum things like newly developed materials.  Now [that] goes directly to teachers and I think [principals] are losing … I feel left out.  (CB)

Back to Table of Contents
 
Summary of Section One
The principals in this study represent both genders, a range of very little experience through to over twenty years of leadership as principals and a variety of teaching experiences and education.  All were provided full information about the study and were provided the opportunity to decline their involvement.  All chose to be a part of the participant group.

Principals in this study were very anxious to share their stories about their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction.  Some of their stories reflected an opportunity for them to live out and express their personal beliefs and values about education.  Other stories described how their role is carried out within the organizational structure of their school division.  All appear to bring with them their own leadership style and way of working with a variety of publics.  All believe they are leaders of curriculum and instruction.

The participants all have an evolving or determined vision for their respective schools.  And yet, this vision seems to be quite distant at times when tasks other than the direct leadership of curriculum and instruction are required of them by their various publics and supervisors.  This causes frustration for them.  The frustration may have roots in several sources.  It appears, to some degree, that these participants are struggling valiantly to maintain a balance between management tasks and curriculum and instructional leadership issues in their roles as principals.  This balance is tenuous as they work to be directly involved in curriculum issues while others are requiring more and more of their time in the procedural and management domains.
 
Back to Table of Contents 

Finally, as I sat staring into the computer screen one day, as if hoping that insights would miraculously appear on the screen, I realized that I was beginning to understand the world of my participants; a world filled with questions, reflections and, from time to time, self doubt.  As informed and thoughtful as the literature review process had made me, I still found myself filled with questions - the very place from which I began my research.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Human Aspects of Leadership
“Roles do not exercise leadership; people do” (Clifford et al., 1992, p. 117).  This statement echoes through much of the research conducted on leadership in and beyond education (De Bevoise, 1984; Carrell et al., 1997; Fullan, 1992/1997; Patterson, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1992).  I also found it to be true as I listened and responded to the stories told by the participants.  Sitting in a participant’s office or pausing in the school hallway caused me to see these people as people.  It almost seems awkward to say that the participants were certainly more than their title of ‘principal’.  They are fathers and mothers.  They belong to various volunteer associations.  They go on family vacations, ride bikes, pay utility bills and make mortgage payments.  They are people involved in exercising their role as principals in their respective schools.

In her synthesis of the research on the principal as an instructional leader, De Bevoise (1984) noted that

perhaps the important lesson to be learned from an examination of the characteristics of effective principals relevant to instructional leadership is the diversity of styles that appear to work … the uniqueness of each principal’s situation makes generalizations about personal characteristics and leadership styles difficult. … The personal characteristics of the principal cannot be ignored when studying what constitutes effective instructional leadership.  However, studies of personal characteristics and leadership styles are of limited use out of context.   (De Bevoise, 1987, pp. 17-18)

leadership practises are still guided by prescriptions derived from effective schools and school improvement modes of inquiry regardless of the context of that leadership.  As a result, practices are recommended even when they may not have a good fit in a particular community or leadership context.  A number of researchers have concluded that a more contextualized view of the thinking and learning processes of leadership is needed as well as greater emphasis on the study of the internal and external influences on the principalship.  (Tufts, 1996. p. 127)

It is critical to consider these human aspects of leadership that impact on the whole notion of leadership.  It is further imperative to note that even more chaos is added to the mix when understandings about the concept of leadership begin to shift and new definitions begin to emerge.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Shifting Paradigms of Leadership
Patterson (1993) indicated there has been a shift in definitions of leadership.  He claims we have moved away from bossing - the seventy-five year old model of leadership based on the central values of power and control.  According to him, we have moved to the concept of a leader who is concerned with “the process of influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization” (p. 3).

We appear to be in the midst of leaving the current beliefs about leadership.  Transformational leadership, the buzz phrase of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, is being left in favour of an emerging paradigm of leadership.  Sergiovanni (in Brandt, 1992) seemed to be speaking to this issue when he called for a substitute for leadership.  He argued that leaders should begin to serve those who had, in the past, served them: servant leadership.

Clifford et al. (1992) also noted this shift in the leadership paradigm.  They agree that overseeing the implementation of programs is one aspect of curriculum leadership, but that  the leadership of curriculum becomes another issue.  They note that curriculum experts who have lead the way in the design and implementation of curriculum work as a support to the principal.  Their leadership flows to the principal who, in turn, leads the school.    Recognition needs to be paid to this type of leadership web or concept.  Leadership, and the strength in the leadership, becomes not the person at the apex of the triangle, but rather in the nexus of the web (Wheatley, 1994).  Leadership is now being examined for its relational aspects rather than its altitude in a hierarchy.

Clifford et al. (1992) also called for the asking of grander questions about curriculum leadership.  They believe we should be discussing not the implementations of programs, but rather questions that centre on issues such as the curriculum itself, the purpose of school, and our current means of organizing ourselves to teach young children.  Or, as Wheatley phrased it, “we need to be able to trust that something as simple as a clear core of values and vision, kept in motion through continuing dialogue, can lead to order” (Wheatley, 1994, p. 147).

Back to Table of Contents
 
Leadership Styles
The participants in this study all undertook a variety of activities to play out their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction.  Some of these activities seem to be based on their personal beliefs and values while other activities seem to be dependent upon central office expectations, school context and staff expertise.  Human aspects to leadership, combined with school context, appear to play themselves out in ways that some have defined as leadership styles.
 
It is my contention that defining leadership styles is far too lock-step a means of ‘tagging’ principals with various labels and that “the range of ways in which leadership can be exercised is virtually limitless”(Krug, 1992, p. 431).  However,  a focus on leadership styles helps to understand how certain categories of leaders can be used to further understand the roles principals assume and play out in the areas of curriculum and instruction.

Goldman identified three leadership styles that he has called the encouraging style, too swamped to get involved and resistant to change.  He settled on these styles given the argument that

leadership style is determined by deep-seated values and beliefs about how people learn.  Leaders may call their leadership style whatever they wish - transactive, transformational, top-down, bottom-up - but ultimately, their deep-seated values and beliefs are mirrored throughout the school.  (p. 21)

Researchers advise that the concept of leadership is shifting toward a new paradigm (Brandt, 1992; Clifford et al. 1992; Fawcett, 1996; Lee, 1993), a participatory leader that values expertise from all areas of the organization (Hoerr, 1996).   ‘Web-like’ leadership styles, in combination with the new meanings being put to the concept of leadership, form the basis for shared curriculum and instructional leadership.  When the power and responsibilities of leadership are shared, a new meaning for leadership results.  This new meaning sees the principal as an “enabler of solutions” (Fullan, 1992) and a “leader of leaders” (Brandt, 1992).

I believe principals who find themselves in the categories of ‘community builder’ or ‘orchestra leader’ to be in the best position to work with their staffs and lead curriculum and instruction in the next millennium.  Returning to the idea of human impacts on leadership, I believe that “what distinguishes effective instructional leaders from others is not a distinctive set of characteristics but an approach to their work that is guided by a distinctive set of beliefs about what is possible” (Krug, 1992, 441).

Back to Table of Contents
 
Leadership During Times of Educational Change
The participants in this study spoke frequently about feeling overwhelmed and of a need “to just slow down and get on with the business of teaching kids” (CP).  They spoke of being confused from time to time because so many initiatives and changes are coming at them so quickly.  These principals, regardless of their leadership styles and beliefs about school, are certainly in the midst of dealing with a phenomenal amount of changes in education.  As mentioned earlier, curricula in Saskatchewan have been rewritten and introduced to schools at an alarming rate over the last decade.  A focus on leadership during times of educational change seems appropriate.

Change is the constant evolution of life.  Nothing in life remains static.  Schools are constantly undergoing change.  The change occurring in a school at any given moment is dynamic and multidimensional.  The school, the community, the school division, government departments, business influences, economic climates, political demands, technological advances, and educational research are some of the dimensions that are impacting on every school at any one time.  All of these influences create the ever changing context in which the school operates.  A change in any one of these areas will, either implicitly or explicitly, require a change in the best practices of the school (Fullan, 1991).

Michael Fullan, an international leader in change research in education, confirmed that change is a snarled and complicated issue (Fullan, 1991).  He also emphasizes that change is a process that involves simultaneous and multidimensional aspects.  A simplified overview of Fullan’s view of the change process is shown in Figure 3.  Fullan’s change model closely resembles Saskatchewan Education’s curriculum implementation model (DIME model) discussed earlier.  Combining Fullan’s thoughts on change with the DIME model for curriculum development would support principals as they work to understand and enhance their role as curriculum and instructional leaders.
 

Figure 3

 
Fullan’s discussions of change and the model he presents are good tools for those leaders who feel the need to work in a somewhat linear fashion.   However, Wheatley (1994) indicated that we should stop forcing a linear structure on change and organizations.  Instead we should look to chaos theory and the images of ‘strange attractors’.

There is no predictability; the system never is in the same place twice.  But as chaos theory shows, if we look at such a system long enough and with the perspective of time, it always demonstrates its inherent orderliness.  The most chaotic of systems never goes beyond certain boundaries; it stays contained within a shape that we can recognize as the system’s strange attractor.  (p. 21)

Organizational Structures
If the time is ripe for a change in definition of leadership, and principals such as those found in my participant group, are in the throes of understanding for themselves what that new definition is, then it only seems reasonable to assume that a redefining of organizational structures is on the horizon.

The participants are very aware that their own roles as leaders of curriculum and instruction are changing.  As I listened to them, it struck me that perhaps these administrators are in part playing out their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction through the management arm of their responsibilities.  Teacher and paraprofessional appraisals, for example, used to be conducted by central office personnel.  Principals are now being asked to perform these duties that indirectly involve them in enhancing the learning environment.

Could it be that Kleine-Kracht (1993) was correct when she reported on the results of a qualitative study that indicated principals exert an indirect as well as direct influence on instruction?  This seems reasonable.  It could also be that clarification needs to be made regarding the role of the principal in the school division in which this study took place or that it is time to redefine the organizational structure across the school division.

Wheatley (1994) would argue in favour of redefining the organizational structure to harmonize more closely with the parameters found in chaos theory.  She painted a beautiful image of organizational structures when she wrote about the realization and analogy that came to her on an excursion into the Rocky Mountains.

Finally, I ask[ed] directly:  What is it that streams can teach me about organizations?  I am attracted to the diversity I see, to these swirling combinations of mud, silt, grass, water, rocks.  This stream has an impressive ability to adapt, to shift the configurations, to let the power balance move, to create new structures.  But driving this adaptability, making it all happen, I think, is the water’s need to flow.  Water answers to gravity, to downhill, to the call of ocean.  The forms change, but the mission remains clear.  Structures emerge, but only as temporary solutions that facilitate rather than interfere.  There is none of the rigid reliance on single forms, on true answers, on past practices that I have learned in business.  Streams have more than one response to rocks; otherwise, there’d be no Grand Canyon.  Or else Grand Canyons everywhere.  The Colorado [River] realized that there were ways to get ahead other than by staying broad and expansive.  (Wheatley, 1994, pp. 16-17)

I can’t help but hearken to Wheatley who would have us deal with change and organizational structures by opening our minds and hearts to a faith in naturally occurring systems, to remind ourselves of the stream that seeks the ocean.

Throughout the universe, then, order exists within disorder and disorder within order. … Linear thinking demands that we see things as separate states:  One needs to be normal, the other exceptional.  Yet there is a way to see this ballet of chaos and order, of change and stability, as two complementary aspects in the process of growth, neither of which is primary … While we have lusted for order in organizations, we have failed to understand its true nature.  (p. 21)

Back to Table of Contents
 
Support During Times of Change
The participants in this study all expressed confusion, frustration and self-doubt about certain aspects of their positions as leaders of curriculum and instruction.  Other aspects of their positions left them feeling confident and focused.  I believe this is due, in part, to their varying levels of comfort with specific initiatives and changes, and their past experience with similar situations.  I believe principals need the same level of support during change as teachers.

Hall and Loucks (1977) describe Concerns-based Adoption Model  (CBAM) for working with such situations.  These two researchers developed two dimensions for describing and working with change within this model: a personal concerns measure and a chart measuring the actions or use of a new innovation.  The purpose of the model was to assist administrators when working with teachers during times of change.   Anderson (1997) claims it is time to revisit this “robust and empirically grounded theoretical model” (p. 331).  I believe the use of these measures would help principals recognize their own levels of use and concern about their own roles and to help them to answer the questions “How will I recognize the new curriculum in action when I see it?  How can I help teachers change?”

The Concerns-based Adoption Model makes certain assumptions about change.  This model sees change as a process, not an event or an announcement.  It is a journey, not a destination.  Secondly, change is seen as a personal experience.  Everyone experiences change in a different way and at a unique pace.  The model, like other researchers (Fullan, 1991), assumes that individuals must change before a school or school division can change.  Lastly, change is assumed to be a series of developmental steps that occur in two ways: growth in knowledge and skills about the innovation, and changes in attitude toward the innovation.

CBAM looks at dealing with change through two dimensions: personal concerns and levels of action or use of an innovation.  To best describe this model, consider it in the personal context or analogy of learning to dance.  A person may have minimal skills and knowledge about dancing and doesn’t care to learn any more about it.  Perhaps this learner is concerned about such elements as appearing foolish on the dance floor, having “two left feet”, and so on.  The learner’s “level of use” for dancing is reserved to situations, such as a wedding, where a person simply must be sociable and dance with a family member.  Given the CBAM model, this person has both personal concerns (looking foolish in public, two left feet) and a low level of use for dancing (reserved for weddings only).  Recognition and use of this model would help a learner overcome concerns and progressively begin to dance more often and in more situations.  Taken to the highest degree of sophistication on this model, a person would soon have no concerns about stepping on to any dance floor and adding innovative twists to dances learned.

The stages of concern are seen as the various levels of reactions or concerns that individuals encounter as they are faced with change.  The types of concerns people will be faced with depend upon their personalities, orientations toward curriculum, and their past experiences with similar change.  I also believe that a person’s level of expertise or comfort with the area undergoing change will affect the types or stages of concern they will undergo during the process of change.

Along with the stages of concern, people experience different levels of intensity with each concern.  The intensity of a concern will depend upon how soon the change is going to occur and the perceived impact on an individual’s situation.

The second dimension to the CBAM model is Levels of Use.  Hall and Loucks (1977) explain that this dimension focuses on what action people actually take with regard to a new initiative.  The levels range from no awareness at all of the new innovation through to a very sophisticated level of implementation.  There is a decision making point at each level.  It is to be expected that individuals will find themselves at different levels of use for each aspect of the change they are undergoing.

When initially faced with a change, people are foremost concerned with how the innovation will affect them personally.   These people are entering the depth of what Fullan (1991) calls the Implementation Dip.  They need a personal connection to the change.  With more and more exposure and experience with the innovation, various levels of comfort begin to grow within the individual undergoing the change.  Less and less concern about “the self” is replaced with more and more concern about others who are being affected by the same change.

Finally, once change is very comfortable, many people begin to manipulate the innovation to see how it can be made better, or changed in some aspects, to improve conditions, it is not unusual for people involved in this new round of change to find themselves back at Stage 0; a very personal / survival focused stage of concern.  The difference here, however, is that these people have gained the experience and confidence from the first ‘go round’ of the stages of concern to support themselves.

As a visual means of understanding the Stages of Concern and how it relates to a natural cycle of learning, refer to the information provided in the following figure (Figure 4).  This visual depiction is offered as my own synthesis of research findings.

As learners, or in this case principals, are faced with change, each will proceed through a natural learning cycle and will have certain questions that should be addressed at specific times.  It is imperative that those who work with or supervise these administrators be aware of the timeliness and type of information they are providing to principals, as well as be open to the idea that each principal will need different types of information depending on his or her stage of concern or location in the learning cycle.
 

Figure 4  The Stages of Concern Integrated With A Natural Learning Cycle

In the mix of elements that create these individualistic leaders, they are caught in a time of shifting beliefs or paradigms about leadership and organizational structures.  This entire scenario has left my participants feeling confused about certain aspects of their role as leaders of curriculum and instruction.  I believe the best supports that can be offered to these people is a recognition of their stages of concern and levels of use (Anderson, 1997; Hall and Loucks, 1977) of new initiatives while experiencing a natural learning cycle.

Along with this aspect, I believe consideration should be made to how these leaders of curriculum and instruction are educated at the graduate school level and the reculturing of the administrator’s group within the school division.

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents
 
Recognition that Principals are People
Principals are people first.  They bring with them all of the experiences, good and bad, they have undergone in schools, with other leaders, with change and when interacting with others.  They are an accumulation of these and other factors and need to be recognized as such.  They need to be listened to, given time to dialogue with their peers, and to have focused curriculum and instructional agenda items offered to them during times of educational change.  They need to be given opportunities to share their thinking with others.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Time to Listen and Speak
The principals in this study frequently stated that one support they wish they had was time at administrators’ meetings to discuss curricular items and to have professional development time devoted to them at these meetings.  At both the onset and conclusion of our focus group discussion, participants thanked me for the time I had provided them to talk with each other about their views about and insights into curriculum and instruction issues.  Imagine my surprise!  From my perspective, I was infringing on their valuable time in schools!  This generosity of time caused me to value the importance of these statements and recognize that principals, alone in their respective buildings, want time to network, dialogue, or simply have a good old fashioned chat with a colleague about common curriculum and instruction issues.  They want the opportunity to confirm and extend their own thinking by talking with and listening to other principals.

During the individual interviews, I heard frequent statements to the effect of “I don’t know if what I’m telling you is going to be of any use”.  I sensed they were unsure of some of their ideas.  During the focus group session, I sensed a passion and solidity in their words that was not present in the individual interviews.  I came away thinking that group discussion time was much needed for these leaders.

The participants also spoke about wanting time to discuss curriculum and instruction items with their direct supervisors.  They reported that discussions with these people focused on building and budget issues rather than students and learning environments.  All nodded in agreement at the focus group discussion when one participant spoke of a desire to talk about ‘kids and learning’ with these people for at least a portion of the supervisor’s visit.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Definitions of Curriculum
The participants held varying definitions within the breadth of definitions that can be found in the literature.  Since settling on one definition for curriculum has troubled the field for the last 75 years, noting that these principals did not share a common definition did not concern me.  However, I did pause and reflect when one participant stated that
we hear at administrator meetings  “Remember, you are the curriculum leader and the instructional leader in the school.”  And I used to think of that in very narrow terms.  Instructional leader being the one that has to be on top of curriculum. …  My definition has certainly widened and I don’t know if the definition of those who say it to us is as wide as what mine is.  (BG)

Perhaps it is just fine to individually define curriculum for each person or school, but what may be lacking is the opportunity to share those definitions with others.  Just like my examination of the orientations toward curriculum helped me to understand where the participants were ‘coming from’, I believe it is just as important to share this kind of information between colleagues, principals and superintendents, superintendents and principals, educators and trustees, and so on.  When writing about instructional leadership, Avila noted that

there are many definitions of instructional leadership, so principals must clarify their own personal definitions, … And - perhaps more important - they must share those definitions with staff members and superiors.  (Avila, 1990, p. 52)

Each principal needs to work out for him or herself exactly what the leadership of curriculum and instruction means in his or her specific situation.  Adopting this stance and then communicating it with others can help to avoid disagreement or confusion.  Knowing an administrator’s definition of leadership in these areas also contributes to better understanding the degree of success each has had as a leader of curriculum and instruction (Avila, 1990).

Back to Table of Contents
 
Time Spent on Curriculum and Instruction
The participants in this study unanimously saw themselves as curriculum and instructional leaders in their schools.  At the same time, however, most expressed frustration at not being able to devote more time to the direct leadership activities of these areas.  Many reports indicate that principals devote very little time to curriculum issues in their buildings.  Fullan and Willower noted that principals generally spend a small proportion, 15 to 25 percent, of their time on curriculum and instruction issues (Onstad, 1991).  The elementary principals Morris (in Murphy, 1987) observed devoted 9% of their time to visiting classrooms.  Peterson found that principals spent 5% of their time in classrooms (Peterson in Murphy, 1987).  The most disturbing statistic came from Howell (in Murphy, 1987) who noted that elementary principals spend less than 2% of their total time acting as instructional leaders.

Principals need to be lauded for the direct and indirect leadership activities they perform.  I contend that the figures cited above would be very different if the indirect issues of this leadership function were taken into account.  Networking opportunities designed to confirm and extend each principal’s confidence and commitment, in combination with focused discussion with their supervisors, would also prove to paint a more favourable picture of the principal as a leader of curriculum and instruction.   Supports designed to better prepare principals for the realities of curriculum and instructional leadership would also increase their successes in these areas.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Guidance in Curriculum and Instruction
Given the rapidity of change in curricula within the province, the participants called for a synthesis of information that would help them ‘stay on top of’ current curricula and pedagogy.  They asked for a document rich in information that could be easily accessed and read.  Along with the document, they want inservice time to digest and reflect on the material contained in it.  In one participant’s words “it isn’t going to work to just throw a manual out at us” (CB).

A document or handbook of this type would help to give principals both a holistic image of curricula along with the finer details inherent in each.  I believed at the onset of this study that such a document would be a fine tool for administrators.  It pleased me greatly to hear this come from the voices of my participants.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Graduate Programs for Principals
If the larger audience of principals is not spending time on curriculum issues, and schools are achieving their goals, then do we need principals?  Why not hire business managers with MBA degrees?  The simple answer to this question is “Sure, why not!”, unless we challenge ourselves to ask the question:  Is it time to review how principals are prepared to assume their roles in schools so that they can become educational leaders rather than managers of educational institutions?

Pratt and Common’s (1986) study of Canadian universities indicates only two of the twenty-five universities surveyed required their administration graduate students to take a curriculum course as a part of their program.  Twenty-three of these universities had separate curriculum and administration departments.  One of my participants confirmed these findings when she was reflecting on why she graduated from Curriculum Studies in her master’s program instead of Educational Administration.   “I thought I could learn anything I needed to learn about administration … on the job” (JW).

Given their finding, Pratt and Common (1986) conducted a study involving seventy-two principals and vice-principals.  Briefly, what they found in this study was that the administrators involved found very little use for their administration classes (administrative and organizational theory, politics and finance) in their day-to-day jobs.  In contrast, courses dealing with curriculum and instruction proved to be among the most valuable.  In fact, when asked how necessary the graduate level courses were for preparation for the principalship, 100% responded “yes” to instructional management courses, 97% for curriculum implementation courses, and 94% for curriculum development courses.  This compares to a positive response rate of 33% in favour of the administrative theory and design class and 28% for the politics of education courses.

All in all, Pratt and Common came away stating that “the omission of curriculum components tells [graduate] students that the educational administration community in universities does not consider issues of curriculum management significant to the work of educational administrators” (p. 4).

Back to Table of Contents
 
Organizational Structures
The participants in this study agreed that they wanted more time to talk to their direct supervisors about ‘kids and learning’.  Participants were also unanimous in saying that they knew who they could turn to in central office that would help them work out the curriculum and instructional issues of the moment.  They felt very comfortable picking up the phone and calling any number of particular superintendents, coordinators and consultants.  Many also talked about the frequency with which they would call a mentor or colleague whom they trusted implicitly.

It may be time to consider organizational restructuring more in line with the flexible, organic patterns of which Carrell, Jennings and Heavrin (1997) wrote.  Wheatley’s analogy of the stream comes to mind at this point.  Educators want the best that can be for students.  This is our shared vision.  Within the infrastructure of the school division (the stream’s bed), perhaps allowances need to be made, or made more explicitly, that allow principals (the water) to achieve their vision in a way that works for their specific situation.

Back to Table of Contents
 
Closing Comments
After having peeked into the worlds of six urban elementary principals, it was difficult for me to leave.  I know that one result of having conducted this research is that I will always see the principalship in a softer light than I had at the onset of my study.  I now see these people as individuals, rather than as a group.  I see them as people who continue to search for themselves what it means to be leaders of curriculum and instruction - each defining for themselves, their contexts, and their staff and students, what it means to lead in these areas.  They are the leaders of leaders (Fullan, 1991; Sergiovanni in Brandt, 1992) in their schools.  They are not just problem solvers, but rather problem definers who are constantly reaching out and exploring new ideas and solutions (Cooper, 1989).  They are not trying to hold on to yesterday and today.  Instead, they are creating tomorrow in the best ways that they, as individuals, know how.

It is my hope that school trustees, superintendents, directors, and the like will consider the findings and recommendations of this qualitative study and

Avila, L. (April 1990).  Just what is instructional leadership anyway?  NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 52-56.

Anderson, S. (1997).  Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns   based adoption model.  Curriculum Inquiry,  27(3), 331-367.

Anderson, K., & Durant, O.  (1989).  Orchestrating staff development for all   school personnel.  Journal of Staff Development, 10(1), 14-17.

Bergh, E., & Van der Linde, P. (1996).  The principal's role in implementing   curriculum. Saskatchewan Educational Administrator, 27(2), 1-12.

Brandt, R. (1992).  On rethinking leadership:  A conversation with Tom    Sergiovanni.  Educational Leadership, 49(5), 46-49.

Carrell, M., Jennings, D. & Heavrin, C. (1997).  Fundamentals of organizational behaviour.  New Jersey:  Prentice Hall Inc.

Chell, J. (1995).  SSTA research in brief:  Introducing principals to the role of instructional leadership, (#95-14).  Regina, SK: Saskatchewan School   Trustees Association.

Clifford, P., Ditchburn, S., Evans, R., Partridge, L., Klinck, P., & Washburn, W.   (1992).  Curriculum leadership and the principalship.  Edmonton:  Alberta  Education.

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1988).  Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience.  Toronto:  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Cooper, L. (1989).  Redefining the principalship:  The principal as instructional   leader.  Principal, 68(3), 13-16.

Covey, S. R. (1989).  The seven habits of highly effective people:  Restoring the character ethic. Toronto:  Simon and Schuster.
 
Deal, T. (1987) Effective school principals:  Counsellors, engineers,    pawnbrokers, poets … or instructional leaders? in Greenfield (ed.)   Instructional leadership concepts, issues and controversies.  Newton,   Mass.:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

De Bevoise, W. (1984).  Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional   leader.  Educational Leadership, 41(5),14-20.

De Bono, E. (1998). Simplicity. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Doll, R.C. (1982). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process (5th  ed.).  Toronto:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Donmoyer, R. & Wagstaff, J. (1990).  Principals can be effective managers and   instructional leaders.  NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 20-29.

DuFour, R.P. (1991).  The principal as staff developer.  Bloomington, Indiana:    National Educational Service.

Dwyer, D. (1986).  Understanding the principal's contribution to instruction.   Peabody Journal of Education, 63, 3-18.
 
Dukacz, Albert S. & Babin, Patrick (1980).  Perspectives on curriculum.  In Connelly, F. Michael, Dukacz, Albert S. &Babin, Patrick, Curriculum planing for the classroom.  Toronto:  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Eisner, E.W. & Vallance, E. (1974).  Conflicting conceptions of curriculum.  Out    of print.

  Eisner, E.W. (1994).  The educational imagination:  On design and evaluation of school programs.  Toronto:  Maxwell MacMillan Canada.

  Eisner, E.W. (1997). Cognition and representation: A way to pursue the      american dream?.  Phi Delta Kappa, January 1997, 349-353.
 
Fawcett, G. (1996).  Moving another big desk.  Journal of Staff Development,    17(1), 34-36.

Fullan, M. (1991).  The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.).  New   York: Teachers’ College Press.

Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 19-20.

Fullan, M. & Rolheiser, C. (1996). Staff developers:  Changing roles for changing times.  Paper presented at the NSDC “Reaching Beyond the Rim” 1996 Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC.

Fullan, M. (1997a).  What’s worth fighting for in the principalship?  Strategies  for taking charge in the school principalship (2nd. ed).  Mississagua, ON:   Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.
 
Fullan, M. (1997b).  Learning to make change effectively. A paper presented at   the Saskatchewan Education Leadership Unit conference, Saskatoon,SK.

Fullan, M. (1998).  Breaking the bonds of dependency.  Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992).  Becoming qualitative researchers:  An introduction.  NY:  Longman Press.

Government of Saskatchewan (1995). The education act,1995 (Chapter E-02   of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1995 ((effective January 1, 1997) as   amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1996, c. 45).  Regina, SK:    Author.

Hall, G. (1984).  Three principal styles of facilitating school improvement.  (Eric   Reproductions Service No. ED249582).
 
Hall, G. & Loucks, S. (1977).  A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented.  American Educational Research Journal,  14(3), 263-276.

Hall, E., Loucks, S., Rutherford, W. & Newlove, B. (1975).  Levels of use of the innovation:  A framework for analyzing innovation adoption.  Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52-56.

Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1987).  Instructional leadership in the school context.  In I. Greenfield (Ed.)  Instructional leadership concepts, issues and controversies.  Newton, Mass.:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Hoerr, T. (1996).  Collegiality:  A new way to define instructional leadership.    Phi Delta Kappan.  77(5), 380-381.

Hord, S. & Hall, G. (1983). Three images:  What principals do in curriculum implementation(R&D Report #3181).  Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.

Irwin, C. (January 1985).  What research tells the principal about instructional leadership.  Session presented at the National Association of Secondary School  Principals’ Annual Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Johnson, S. M. (1998).  Telling all sides of the truth.  Educational Leadership,   55(7), 12-16.

Kanpol, B. & Weisz, E. (1990).  The effective principal and curriculum - A focus   on leadership.  NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 15-18.

Kleine-Kracht, P. (1993).  Indirect instructional leadership:  An administrator’s   choice.  Educational Administration Quarterly,   29(2), 187-212.

Krug, S. E. (1992).  Instructional leadership:  A constructivist perspective.    Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443.

Lee, G. (1993).  New images of school leadership:  Implications for    professional development.  Journal of Staff Development,  14(1), 2-5.

Leithwood, K. (1992).  The move toward transformational leadership.     Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

Miller J.P. & Seller W. (1985).  Curriculum:  Perspectives and practice.  New   York:  Longman Inc.

Murphy, J. (1988).  Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,  10(2), 117-139.
 
Murphy, J. (1990).  Instructional leadership:  Focus on curriculum responsibilities.  NASSP Bulletin, 74(525), 1-4.

Oliva, P.F. (1989).  Supervision for today’s schools (3rd ed.).  New York:    Longman Inc.
 
Onstad, B. (1991).  The generic manager as educational administrator:  School management vs. educational leadership.  Saskatchewan Educational Administrator,  24(1), 22-31.

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum--Foundations, Principles, and Issues.  Allyn & Bacon.

Patterson, J. (1993).  Leadership for tomorrow’s schools.  Alexandria, VA:    Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pratt, D. & Common, R. (1986).  The miseducation of Canadian educational   administrators.  The Canadian Administrator, 25(5), 1-8.

Saskatchewan Education  (1984).  Directions: Curriculum and instruction review.  Regina, Sask.:  Author.
 
Saskatchewan Education (1991).  Core curriculum guides: Standardization of contents and format.  Regina:  Author.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view.    San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (1990).  The fifth discipline.  New York, NY:  Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992).  Moral Leadership : Getting to the Heart of School Improvement.  Jossey-Bass Education.

Taba, H. (1962).  Curriculum development:  Theory and practice.  New York:    Harcourt, Brace and World.

Tufts, M. (1996).  Principal behaviour and school context:  A case study.     Unpublished manuscript, University of Saskatchewan.

Tyler, Ralph W. (1949).  Basic principles of curriculcum and instruction.     Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.
 
Ubben, G.C. & Hughes, L.W. (1987).  The principal:  Creative leadership for effective schools.  Toronto:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Wheatley, M. (1994).  Leadership and the new science:  Learning about organization from an orderly universe.  San Francisco, CA:  Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Wheatley, M. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996).  A simpler way.  San Francisco, CA:   Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Back to Table of Contents