edleadership

A revolution is taking place in school leadership. New policies call for higher academic standards and accountability. So-called “accountability systems” include a more methods to develop and monitor school change. Researchers have joined the fray, adding their opinions about the reinvention of instructional leadership in schools.

More focus on student results leads to local changes aligned with the performance goals of the educational system. The general presumption is that these changes will come automatically, since public reporting of school outcomes creates pressure for reform.  The development of direct incentives that yield innovation, efficiency, and solutions to performance problems will also be a source of change.

Accountability systems force the development of standards required for improved instructional and assessment practices. They also act as incentives for participation in the process. This simple logic of an accountability system is compelling, providing an irresistible rationale for educational reform.

This new vigor in instructional leadership has been  spurred by  the No Child Left Behind Act. The recent debate in the U.S. on the legitimacy of using standardized tests to gauge student learning has led to new leadership efforts and spending to help schools achieve better test scores. These efforts have pressured new instructional leadership, characterized by school analysts, researchers, and school leaders focusing on data in their decision-making. This new instructional paradigm was envisioned earlier in research.

This new instructional style has also been referred to as “learning-centered” leadership. It began with a push by state education leaders to process student data from available achievement tests. Private companies enjoyed financial benefits, selling data reporting systems to schools to help them  sort the data. State education leaders  hired consultants, who created data analysis workshops and data retreats to instruct school leaders on effective data use. School leaders adopted new  school reform plans and curricula coordinated with state learning standards, resulting in far-reaching changes in student learning. Positive results only happened when practitioners were willing to change their ways and conform to the new standards.

The biggest problem in data-driven decision-making is the implementation of  new accountability practices. Most schools already had active, working internal accountability systems. Schools already made decisions based on data, such as class attendance, test scores, student discipline, available budgets, and teacher reputations. Administrative reliance on these old internal accountability systems has cased the most  resistance to reforms in school instructional practice.

To use  data to improve student performance,  leaders need to factor in external accountability instead of traditional methods. This new model  improves on traditional practices such as teacher evaluation, professional development, curriculum design, and building new cultures of learning. Older techniques will have to be changed to address the challenges of contemporary schools.

Practical  systems rely on two-way information flow,  connecting classroom practice with external accountability measures. This requires stronger links between teaching and leadership , teacher collaboration, learning matched with current instructional goals, and close monitoring of instructional outcomes. To succeed here, the leader must assist students in taking tests, avoid favoring  test preparation over learning, and justify instructional practices changes to the community.

Data Acquisition

Data acquisition refers to the  processes of seeking, collecting, and preparing useful information for teaching and learning activities. The data gathered and processed at this stage comes from  student  test scores. However, other fields of information are needed to inform teaching and learning.

Data storage is a vital element of data acquisition. There is a need to use local data systems, since the NCLB Act requires certain information on student performance. Schools have created a retail demand for data storage and data analysis products.

Data Reflection

Data reflection is the manipulation of student learning data toward improved teaching and learning practices. DDIS data reflection is a structured opportunity for both teachers and leaders to make useful sense of data, rather than guessing  “what works.”

Data reflection can be done at a school-wide level, grade level, or even in subject-area meetings.  Problem framing is a vital element of data reflection . This involves active thought on how data can improve outcomes, leading to a a plan of action.

Program Alignment

This  involves matching the school’s instructional program to the content and performance standards in classrooms. Program alignment is an essential part of planning for instructional leadership, probably the most sensitive part of DDIS, in order to influence the outcome of the new policies.

Program Design

— It is through program design that the school’s policies, plans, and procedures are defined in such a manner that reported problems are addressed. Curricula, student service programs, and instructional strategies are modified to improve student learning. Program design also involves the inspection of the school’s access to budgets and grants, for starting and maintaining a new program.

Formative Feedback

Feedback is always a crucial in the adoption of new strategies. The DDIS model creates a continuous and timely flow of information, designed to improve student outcomes. This feedback is different from data acquisition and reflection. It applies to information gathered to measure the school’s progress measured in terms of student performance.

Test Preparation

This last part of the DDIS model consists of activities  designed to assess, motivate, and develop student academic abilities, as well as strategies to improve performance on state and district assessment tests. Test preparation covers a wide range of issues, such as test formats, testing skills, and addressing weak areas, as well as test preparation.

“Teaching to the test” refers to study content, called “formulaic instruction.” It is teaching students topics that are tested, without regard to holistic learning. Leaders in schools across the U.S. have changed multiple aspects of school life to gear their instructional programs toward test content. Schools where the DDIS mode was put into action didn’t narrow their curriculum to the test content. The researchers noticed instead that, in schools with DDIS systems, there were rich instructional systems designed to help students meet state exam standards.

A DDIS  system of instructional leadership is insightful, innovative, and results-oriented. It increases precision in predicting student outcomes and developing key areas of study relevant to academic improvement.

Improvements and changes in instructional leadership have kept it relevant, even in the face of other leadership styles. It is accepted that  schools must practice some level of instructional leadership. Instructional leadership remains a crucial aspect of the school setting.

The indirect influences leaders have on teacher emotions have much to do with teachers’ working conditions in the classroom and school. Leaders influence many of the working conditions in significant ways, leading to  an indirect form of influence on teachers’ emotions through their efforts.

The amount and complexity of the teachers’ workloads have a significant effect on their emotions. Teachers overall attitude about the workload  is dependent on their views of five features in their environments. When teachers perceive their workload as unfair, commitments to the school and morale decrease, and feelings of stress/burnout increase.

Excessive paperwork and other bothersome non-teaching demands, like hall monitoring, bus duty, and lunchroom supervision add to teachers’ feelings of stress. This increases likelihood of teachers moving on to other schools or other lines of work.

The intensity of teachers’ workloads also produces negative perceptions. Difficulties reduces job satisfaction, especially when teachers are ill-prepared, or students are uncooperative and achieve poor results. Complexity can become manageable when teachers are given freedom over classroom decisions so that they can do their best work. Creating an atmosphere that encourages learning throughout the school, where instructional resources are readily available, also increases manageability.

Teachers feel the pinch when they are given insufficient preparation time, unreasonably large classes, and complex class composition (e.g., grouping high-performing students with those with special needs). Disruptive students and unmet student needs add to teacher stress. Students’ aspirations, behavior, and readiness to learn are negatively influenced by dysfunctional family environments, which then influences teachers’ emotions.

Four sets of working conditions have a significant influence on the emotions of teachers – school cultures, structures, relations with the wider community, and operating procedures. School cultures have a significant effect on most teacher emotion sets.  The goals and expectations for teachers’ work should be clear, explicit, shared, and meaningful. As a result, teachers are sure of their roles. In such cultures, teacher collaboration is encouraged and supported.

Management of student behavior is an important factor, having significant positive effects on the time required of teachers for instruction. It also has an impact on student performance, because more instructional time means better student performance.

Efforts to handle student misbehavior directly effect the teacher’s job satisfaction, stress, and attendance. Negative results are reduced when school leaders and teachers set and  enforce rules for student behavior. Teachers often respond positively when their leaders value and support teacher and student safety, and where high standards are required of students.

When it comes to school structures, the main purpose is to enhance the development and maintenance of cultures that support teaching and learning. However, not all school structures can be altered easily or quickly. For example, positive teacher emotions are associated  with relatively smaller schools in suburban areas.

All the other structural aspects of schools that affect teachers’ emotions are quite flexible and can easily outweigh the negatives of large school sizes and urban locations. These include positive contributions to teachers’ internal states of efficacy, satisfaction, and commitment, as well as reduced stress/burnout, morale, and engagement. Other overt practices that give teachers opportunities to work together, such as common planning times, work well. Positive effects are also associated with adequate lesson preparation time.

The school’s goals are a true source of direction for teachers’ professional learning. The students provide challenges that stimulate learning, and the school’s resources are the only limitations to learning. Forms of professional development that contribute most to sustained teacher learning are study groups, coaching, mentoring arrangements, networks linking teachers to explore challenges, and asking questions of students.

Empowerment and participation in school decision-making is also important for teachers. This enhances commitment in staff by making them the main causal agents of their own performance. There is also a need for physical facilities that allow teachers to use the instruction type they deem most effective, to increase their engagement in their schools and their desire to continue teaching.

Community relations form part of school conditions that influence the teachers’ job satisfaction, and the chance of school and professional commitment. Positive contributions only occur when the school’s reputation in the community is good, and its efforts are supported by parents and the extended community.

School operating procedures are the last condition that influence the teachers’ sense of individual efficacy, satisfaction, and school commitment. Under these procedures there are three sub-conditions. The first is the quality of communication in the school. Second are teachers’ opinions on school improvement planning, and third is whether the priorities fit.