Successful principalto find resources wlothers see onlyproblems.

'he Search forInstructional Leadership:Routines and Subtletiesin the Principal's Roles are able DAVID C. W hat do successful principalshere DWYER do-day in and day out-to

DVY develop and maintain effec-tive instructional programs? For the pastthree years, the Instructional Manage-ment Program of the Far West Labora-tory for Educational Research and De-velopment has sought to answer to thatquestion. Funded by the National Insti-

_ .'" " -.i. . ... .. -i; _ tute of Education, we talked extensivelyto 42 principals who were nominated by

fellow administrators as successful in-structional leaders. For hundreds of

~ -' i "".~~i-"']iisi..l|lK hours, we collaborated with 17 of......... i..i.them who varied by gender, age,

r

ethnicity, and experience. We watchedtheir activities, looking for conse-quences of their actions on teachers andon students, around their schools, andin classrooms. Their schools ran thegamut: urban and rural; large and small;poor and rich; new programs, en-trenched programs.

We found no single image or simpleformula for successful instructionalleadership. We did find principals en-gaged in effective, routine acts that re-quired no new programs, innovations,or extensive changes in their roles.Their successes hinged on their capacityto connect these routine activities totheir overarching perspectives of thecontexts of their schools and their aspi-rations for their students.

These principals assessed their envi-ronments, knew their limitations andstrengths, and understood the kinds ofprograms and outcomes they desired forstudents. They not only saw themselves

as pivotal points around which theseelements turned, but they believed

in their abilities to influenceeach of those parts. They di-

rected their energies to-ward improving the so-

cial climate of theirschools and the

quality of theinstructional or-

~I~r mmjjj'la b ganization.

Figure 1, which illustrates these rela-tionships and depicts the centrality ofthe school principal in the process ofinstructional management, capturesboth the elements of schooling thatinfluenced the plans and activities ofour principals and those features theyhoped to shape. But it is important toremember that the acts of instructionalleadership that we witnessed were asrichly varied as the settings and theindividuals themselves.

Student Outcomes: No Single VisionWe pictured "Student Outcomes" as theend point of our model. Within our 17schools, however, principals' concernsabout student outcomes were often thestarting places for their planning. Differ-ences in expectations for childrenshaped their ideas about successful pro-grams as well as their activities.

They all emphasized the importanceof achievement, particularly mastery oflanguage and computational skills. Butbeyond these fundamentals, they heldother expectations relative to the studentgroups with which they worked. Forexample, a principal in a poverty areaexpressed this goal: "Minority kids [needto know] how to operate within thepower system. [We need] to get thewelfare kids off the welfare cycle."

A principal of a multi-ethnic schoolspoke of the importance of helping stu-dents learn to live in harmony: "Work-ing harmoniously with people is really

important in a multi-cultural socie-ty.... We really have done a lot tounderstand ethnic backgrounds and [tolearn] work together as a team."

Some principals erphasized personalgrowth themes in their goal stamentsfor students. One said: "Kids sbouldcome out of school feeling good aboutthemselves and what they can do, andthey should have learned to be respaoi-ble for themselves."

Finally, many principals exprlsed adesire to prepare students for their fu-tures. One stated: "We have to educala child to be able to fit into many kindsof employment and to adapt to chanmgYet another said: "We're trying to pre-pare our students for adulthood, to earntheir way in the world."

Principals' expectations for their stu-dents, then, were an essential aset oftheir overarching plan and a sourcee ofinfluence on the nature of their routineactivities. Their work was also contin-

David C. Dwyer is PRect Dinaor,Instructional Management Priwn ,Far West Laboratory for EdustionalResearch and Drvelopment, San Frn-ciow. This paper was supported by acontract from the Natioenal Intitute ofEducation, Department of Eduvatim,under Contract No. 400-83-0003. Tecontents of this paper do not nsmmilyreflect the views or policies of tk D rmrt-ment of Education or the National nsti-tute of Education.

33

Figure 1. The Prindpa's Role in Instructional Management

gent on the community in which theyworked, the institutions with which theywere affiliated, and their own historiesand beliefs. We placed these "givens" oftheir perspectives on the left side ofFigure 1. We realized their importancewhen one principal described her viewof effective schools:

An effective school has cars. Its staff putstogether an instructional program that iscongruent with what it hears in the commu-nity, and with what the district is saying. Sowe must do both and be true to ourselves

The Community as a ValuableResource"Community" proved an importantsource of influence on the activities ofprincipals. One principal commentedthat 60 percent of his daily activitesentailed responses to community situa-tions. In this instance, the neighbor-hood served by his school had fallen onhard times due to of the closing of thetown's industries. Its population grewtransient. Domestic quarreling andchild abuse soared. At one point, theprincipal said, "The police might aswell open a substation right in myschool." He felt that home and commu-nity problems affected his school, andhe actively sought to minimize theirinfluence.

He met his students each day as theyarrived at school, greeting most by nameas they streamed by. He watched theirfaces, listened to their tones, interceptedthose who brandished their anger and

confusion; and provided opportunitiesfor them to talk with him, at lengthwhen necessary. As an immediate ef-fect, their restlessness might be sub-dued. For the long term, he summonedsocial worker, school nurse, learningspecialist, school psychologist, class-room teacher, parents, and even policewhen the situation merited, to plan andintercede on a child's behalf. He fol-lowed these kids from day to day, fromyear to year, watching them in theirclasses and on the playground, talking,teasing, cajoling, gauging their progress.

This principal and others in similarstraits also-attempted to ameliorate fun-damental community problems. Theyserved in discussion groups, spoke toforums, established close ties with po-lice officials--anything to interest com-munity members in their schools. Atthe individual or family level, one prin-cipal organized food drives for the needyand visited hospitalized members of stu-dents' families. He believed that he hadto "take the message of the school to thecommunity" while at the same timemaking "the school aware of communi-ty needs and concerns."

Thus, principals were aware of theconstraints and problems posed by theirrespective communities. Whether theirschools served poor or wealthy neigh-borhoods, these leaders found opportu-nities to extend the available humanand material resources to their schools.To this end, they developed networks ofsupporters who would volunteer time,

argue at board meetings, serve on com-mittees, or help raise funds for newtexts, supplementary programs, andbuilding repairs. One principal capital-ized on his community's poverty toencourage a local bank to finance aninstructional computer center for theschool. In another district, a principalgarnered more than 17,000 hours ofprogram aid from parent and communi-ty volunteers. These principals also dis-played political savvy as they used theircommunity work to build commitmentsthat buffered their schools against capri-cious shifts in district policies. Some feltimmune to criticism or censure becauseof the strength of their community alli-ances.

In short, many of the principals withwhom we worked were able to findopportunity where others might see onlyproblems. They strove to make theirschools integral parts of their neighbor-hoods, and in the process found valu-able resources and security.

Influences From the InstitutionalContextIn addition to the important communitygivens, we became aware of a nestedsystem of institutions that directly affect-ed our principals' activities. Districtmandates were foremost among these,but programs at both the state and feder-al levels also altered their plans andactions. Like the influence of commu-nity, we found that the effects of institu-tional contexts provide both constraintsand opportunities.

EDUCAnoNAL LEADERSHIP

I

34

We also found that different princi-pals react very differently to the samekinds of programs. In two districts, su-perintendents were attempting to stan-dardize instructional programs acrosstheir schools. As a result, decisions re-garding instruction and materials weremade at the district level. A principal inone of these districts criticized the cen-tralized approach:

We used to be a highly decentralizeddistrict. The curriculum at any school wouldpretty well depend on the judgment of theprincipal and staff In the last four years, wehave moved to a very centralized districtwhere the number of central office staff hasincreased immeasurably, and they have tak-en on the role of selection of objectives,materials, and textbooks The principal's jobbecomes more difficult .... You becomemore of a curriculum manager than a curric-ulum leader.This principal's reservation about cen-tralization was based on his belief thatcurriculum and modes of instructionshould be carefully chosen to meet theneeds of students at individual schools.He insisted that this was best accom-plished at the school level and resistedthe effort to centralize.

Another principal, however, praised avery similar central office initiative. Sheparticipated wholeheartedly in a districtinstructional improvement project, vol-unteering the cooperation of her entire

staff instead of just the required pilotgroup. This program specified lessondesign and behavior management skillsat the classroom level. It also prescribedclinical supervision as the central fea-ture of the principal's role in instruc-tional management. This principal em-phasized the advantages of the sharedlanguage and expectations about in-struction that accrued from her entirestaff's participation. Later, she pointedout how saying "yes" enthusiastically tothis initiative allowed her to say "no"adamantly to others.

In the frst instance, the principal sawthe district-mandated instructional pro-gram as a violation of his autonomy. Inthe second example, the principal usedthe district initiative to increase herown. In both instances, we found theirabilities to maneuver within districtconstraints to be important. The firstmustered building support throughresistance. The second gained districtsupport through involvement. In theseexamples and others, we found princi-pals exercising discretionary control atthe building level despite commonclaims that such power is dwindling.Their key to control come from theircommunity relations, their experiencewithin the district, and their relation-ships with district superiors.

ersonal traits, experience,training, and beliefs werediscussed by the principals asinfluential factors affecting theirdecision and activities asinstructional leaders. Ourobservations bore out

I . I . 1

nb

Our principals reacted more uniform-ly to state and federal programs, proba-bly because participation in these pio-grams translated readily into increasedresources for their schools. Despitecomplaints about regulations and paper-work, principals depended on thesesources of funding to maintain theirinstructional programs. Notices of cut-backs were always received with despair,and a good deal of effort was put intoqualifying for available funds.

Personal Beliefs and ExpainemPersonal traits, experience. training,and beliefs were discussed b' the princi-pals as influential factors alecting theirdecisions and activities as instructionaulleaders. To a large extent, our obseva-tions bore out their claims.

In one instance, a principal describedhis strong democratic beliefs, and thendiscussed his view of the mission ofschools:

We should tr, to educate all childen andeducate them the best \ av we can so thatthey can achieve the best they can. I think achild should become a self-reliant. mdepen-dent, and worthwhile citizen in our countrv.Those same democratic and egalitarinvalues were visible in his daily ativities.He rarely mandated anything, but will-ingly expended the necessary energy toinquire about his stars views beforemaking decisions. In addition, students,parents, and even communit' memberswere routinely consulted about schoolprograms; anyone interested found aforum and receptive ears.

Several principals had extensivecounseling backgrounds and discussedthe effect of that experience on theirapproaches to school leadership. Theirskills and beliefs were visible in dailencounters with students and staff. Firstand foremost was their belief in theimportance of communication. Onesaid, for example:

An administrator must listen and wmcan't listen well if you ust sit here nothearing anvthingexept vourself. You've gotto get up and get out because that's whe thepeople are. How do vou kbno if vou'remeeting needs? Needs consntv chanigeThis belief in communication was aprelude to action for this principal.Such attitudes and values, along withpersonal experiences, entered into themediation process between communityand district demands. Taken together,community resources, institutional con-texts, and principals' backgrounds werepotent precursors to their activities asinstructional leaders.

FEBRUARY 1984 35

FEBRUARY 1984 35

Avenues of Action: Climate andInstructional OrganizationCognizant of their constraints and goals,principals maneuvered to close the gapsbetween goals and realities. As wewatched their activities, we observedtwo major avenues of attack: climateand instructional organization.

Discussing the climate of an organi-zation in concise terms is a tricky busi-ness, but school climate is a notion thatall of our principals embraced. Theytreated climate as a characteristic oftheir schools that thev could monitorand change, one that encompassed bothphysical and social elements. Changingclimate included everything from paint-ing walls to organizing the way studentslined up after recess. The comprehen-siveness of the concept can be graspedfrom one principal's comment: "Schoolclimate starts at the curb." In general,they treated climate as a diverse set ofproperties that communicates to stu-dents that the school is a pleasant placeto be, can help them achieve, and is aserious work place.

Instructional organization is our termfor the technical features of instruction-al coordination and delivery to whichour principals attended. When acting toimprove instructional organization,they manipulated class size and compo-sition, scheduling, staff assignments, thescope and sequence of curriculum, thedistribution of instructional materials,and even teaching styles. We suggestthat the elements of climate influencestudents' and staff members' feelings andexpectations about the school, and thatinstructional organization delivers thereality.

The following story of one principaland his school illustrates the interrela-tionship of the two and how their ma-nipulation can affect a school's capacityto deliver quality instruction.The schoolwas bright and cheery; students con-ducted themselves well in classrooms,in the lunchroom, and on the play-grounds. Interactions among all mem-bers of this learning community wereharmonious, but this had not alwaysbeen the case. When the principal wasfirst assigned to this school seven yearsearlier, he had found a poorly lit, un-kempt building, with grey classroomsand hallways. Teachers were barely civilto one another at faculty meetings, andstudents argued and fought continuous-

ly. The school was known in the com-munity as the worst in the district.

The principal formulated a five-yearplan to change the school's image andraise student achievement levels.School climate was his first point ofattack. He organized parents into workparties that cleaned the school andbrushed bright colors and graphics overthe grey walls. Floors were polished andlitter removed. Brighter lights were in-stalled, carpets laid, and restrooms im-proved. More extensive changes oc-curred year by year, allowing theexpenses to be defrayed over time.

He avoided staff demands for sternerreprimands and more frequent studentsuspensions. Instead, risking staff dis-pleasure, he visited classrooms andtalked to children about their work. Heled reading classes in the lower grades.At recess or lunch, he was more likely top;tch softballs to youngsters than policetheir activities. His presence was estab-lished throughout the school. He be-lieved that these activities were signals tothe students that both he and the schoolwere interested in them and prepared tohelp them grow and achieve.

After student deportment improved,this principal turned his attention to theinstructional organization. He had al-ready taught some lower level readingclasses. Next he identified teachers whopersonified his beliefs about instructionand provided time for other teachers toobserve them in action. He providedinservice programs, particularly in thearea of reading. He observed his teach-ers and praised their efforts to adopt hismethods. He used faculty meetings,PTA meetings, even informal conversa-tions with visitors to compliment theefforts of his staff whenever and wherev-er he perceived excellence.

The school's instructional programwas structured so that math, reading,and language development received par-ticular focus in the primary grades. Oth-er subject matter gained prominencefrom year to year. Starting in the 6thgrade, students moved between foursubject matter specialists each day aspart of their preparation for junior high.

This principal emphasized again andagain the importance of the teachingstaff to any instructional program. Con-sequently, he planned extensively forthe effective utilization of his staff andcarefully attended to matters of recruit-ment and hiring. He identified the indi-

vidual strengths of his teachers and as-signed them to grade levels wherestudents would gain most from thosestrengths. Where he found weaknesses,he attempted to remediate teachers byarranging inservice programs, by freeingthem to observe strong teachers, and byvisiting classrooms frequently to offersuggestions and supportive observations.In one instance when his subtle ap-proach failed, a teacher returned to theschool from summer vacation to find awall removed between her classroomand the next. The adjoining classroom,of course, was led by one of the princi-pal's most favored teachers.

He watched for signs of tatigue andburnout. Strong teachers who seemed tofalter were counseled to change gradelevels, even schools, to provide themwith new environments and challenges.If he decided an individual was incom-petent or insensitive to children, heengaged in the necessary steps for thatperson's removal. When openings oc-curred, he exercised control over theassignment of teachers to his schoolthrough an impressive array of strate-gies. Undesirable appointees, for exam-ple, might have their responsibilitiesdescribed in such a way that they woulddecline the position-posthaste.

In addition, he closely monitored in-dividual students. In regularly held con-ferences, staff would inform him of theprogress of students who demonstratedserious learning problems. Monthlystrategies were formulated, implement-ed, re-examined in light of student out-comes, and refined. Although recordkeeping was not this principal's forte, heproduced a file of notes from previousmeetings at each session. All of theseactivities helped shape the programmat-ic realities that students experienced atschool, and lent substance to the expec-tations encouraged by the enhanced cli-mate.

This lengthy example illustrates oneprincipal working through climate andinstructional organization to shape amore effective school. We emphasize,however, that his style, actions, andstrategies were shaped by his specificcontext and his perceptions of whatbehaviors would be effective in his par-ticular school. Although all of our prin-cipals worked to improve climate andinstructional organization in theirschools, their specific activities andstrategies differed.

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

I

36

CommonalitiesBeyond their many differences, we wereable to discern commonalities amongthe principals we studied. We jokedabout needing track shoes to keep upwith them: even when they were not onthe scene, students and staff expectedthem at any minute. Teachers believedthat these principals knew everythingthat went on in their classrooms evenwhen logic dictated that they could not.This perception of pervasiveness was theresult of the principals' visibility in andaround the schools, of their availabilitywhen crises occurred.

Another fundamental characteristicof these principals was the routine na-ture of their actions. Instead of leadersof large-scale or dramatic innovation,we found men and women who shared ameticulous attention to detail. We ob-served an attention to the physical andemotional elements of the school envi-ronment, school-community relations,the teaching staff, schoolwide studentachievement, and individual studentprogress. Their most essential activitiesincluded forms of monitoring, informa-tion control and exchange, planning,direct interaction with students, hiringand staff development, and overseeingbuilding maintenance.

Predictability appeared in annual anddaily cycles. Teacher hiring, staff devel-opment, curriculum planning, andbuilding maintenance projects, for ex-ample, were closely tied to the institu-tional context. Such aspects as fundingcycles, reporting requirements, or thedistrict-controlled school calendar ac-counted for the annual rhythm of theiractivities.

Daily cycles began with principalsroaming their buildings and greetingchildren and staff. As classes began, theywould return to their offices for shortplanning meetings with assistants or toresolve the first round of student prob-lems, which, early in the dav, werefrequently related to problems in thehome. Typically, this hour of officework would be followed by movementthrough the building as recess began.They would monitor, communicate,and resolve problems as they went. Theperiod between recess and lunch provid-ed opportunity to observe classroomsand talk with teachers and students.Lunch hours and much of the afternoonfrequently required attention to disci-pline, and their time was consumedwith student conferences and phone

calls to parents. The end of the studentday would again bring these principalsto the hallways where they would ad-monish or praise, prompt or prohibit inrapid-fire encounters. The ensuingcalm permitted time for reflection andfollow-up, parent conferences, teacherconferences, and staff or committeemeetings.

This predictable daily cycle of princi-pal activities serves a maintenance anddevelopment function within theschool. Routine and practical acts en-able principals to assess the workingstatus of their organizations and theprogress of their schools relative to long-term goals. These are the acts that allowprincipals to alter the course of events inmidstream: to return aberrant studentbehavior to acceptable norms; to suggestchanges in teaching style; to developstudent, teacher, or community supportfor programs already under way: and todevelop awareness of changes in theorganization that must be made in thefuture.

We speculate that the effects of theseroutine acts on the quality of instructionand student experience in schools canbe substantial. As such, this perspectiveon instructional leadership provides theoverworked, out-of-time principal witha manageable alternative to grandioseprograms of school reform.

OutcomesPerhaps the most important lesson fromour work with principals has been therecognition of the diversity of approach-es to successful instructional manage-ment. ' This may be comforting to prin-cipals who fear what they perceive to beoverly mechanized approaches to effec-tive school leadership. This same con-clusion may be disturbing to those whohope that research develops the bestsystem, the easy recipe, the quick fix forailing schools or school districts. Nei-ther group should despair.

Principals do play an important partin shaping effective instructional organi-zations. In doing so, they interpret ahost of information from many sources.They hold tightly to their own experi-ences as educators and their beliefsabout important outcomes for their stu-dents. They find meaning in the some-times paradoxical demands placed onthem, and they maneuver within theirconstraints to move their organizationscloser to their goals-not overnight, but

in small steps that build upon eachother. Their actions must be contingenton their changing scenes. on new de-mands, and on new situations.

Although we found no simple formu-la for success. the model ilustrted inFigure I is a useful heuristic for princi-pals wanting a clearer understanding oftheir instructional systems as a first stepto school improvement. Whenever weintroduce this model to groups of princi-pals, we see smiles and nods of agrec-ment as examples from the case sudiesparallel their own actions and thoughts.

This introduction prepares each par-ticipant to consider his or her ownindividual school and instructional svs-tem. In small-group settings. they areencouraged to provide content for eachcategonry of the model, starting withstudent outcomes and ending with comn-munitv, institutional, and personal fac-tors. At this point, thes have derelopedtheir own unique models of instruction-al management. Identifiing the infor-mation that belongs in each catnoo'reveals conflicts and hurdles that mustbe overcome. Such an analysis alsoreveals sources of strength in a program.foundations on which to build.

After this first round of assessmentthe would-be instructional leader mustask difficult and searching questionsabout personal effectiveness: What arethe immediate and far-reaching conse-quences of my actions? How can Iimprove? Risking still more, the nextstep is to involve other staff members inthe process. What are the perceptions ofothers? Where do they agree? Where dothey differ?

Implementation of the plan mequirspnncipals to carefuliv watch and listenfor the consequences of their actions. toadjust their assessments of the organiza-tion. and to modify strategies and activi-ties appropriately. The process is cvcli-cal and ongoing in the constant.shifting context of schooling. But itspirals purposefully toward the realiza-tion of effective instructional pro-grams.]

'Five different approaches are describedfully in our publication. Fie PRiu inAction: Perspctiva on Instmtionl Man-agement (Dlwyer, Lee, Rowan. and Bosser1983), available through the InstructionalManagement Program at the Far Wed Labo-ratonr for Educational Research and Deel-opment.

FEBRUARY 1984 37

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.