PRINCIPAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Writer: Suwandi Permana (super)

(Pengurus MKPS SMK Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Jawa Barat/Komunitas Cinta Indonesia/KACI #PASTI BISA#)

In the early 1980s some researches had been done concerning the instructional leadership. Hoewever, some researhers claimed that the research had little effect upon the education. ( Bossert,1982; Bridges,1982, Hallinger & Heck,1996,) state that research on school administrators for period 1967-1980 reminds them the dictum ” the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Gilbert disagrees with the statement. He sysnthesized the research from period 1970s serching exemplary schools and the reasons for their effetiveness. His findings explain that there were significant advances in discovering trends underlying effective leadership although they did not have immediate impact upon schools and learning. In 1983 Philip Hallinger continued the previous research and he developed “Principal Instructional Managment Rating Scale” then he revised in 1987. He elaborates instructional/ curriculum leadership into three dimensions. Each dimension explains into constructs:

1.   Manage the curriculum: leaders use a combination of expertise charisma.These principals are very get involved in curriculum and instruction by setting high standard. They often work directly with teachers to improve teaching and learning. In the construct in this dimension, the leaders frame and communicate goals

2.   Define the mission: by setting goals focused on the improvement of student learning.principals often communicate the vision, goal and the mission of the school. In the constructs in this dimension, leaders supervises and ev instruction, coordinates the curriculum, monitors student progress, and protect instructional time.

3.   Promote school culture. Instructional leaders build culture. They create an arena that develop high expectation and standards fro the students, as well as for teachers. In constructs in this dimension, the leaders maintain high visibility, provides incentives for teachers, promotes professional development, and provides incentive for learning.

In 1988 Rick Ginsburg concluded some reseach findings concerning instructional leadership. He argued that Instructional leadership needed to be better reached in order for principals to enhance teaching and learning. Wilma Smith and Richard (1989) assert that principals make a difference as instructional leaders. He concluded into four trends which focus on interaction between principal and teachers:

a.   The principal as resource provider. It means that principal provides crucial link between the activity of the principal and the access of the school.( frederickc & brown,1993)

b.   The principal as instructional resource. It means that principal facilitates good teaching by staying abreast of the latest instructional strategies and techniques.

c.   The principal as communicator. It means that principal shares vision and leads the school in that direction.

The principal as visible presence.It means that principal becomes a model for teachers and students. He encourages and promotes positive school culture and climate.

Learning from the research findings above, I believe that there is a preponderance of principal leadership research evidence indicating that effective schools that carry out improvement of student learning are led by effective leadership. Johnson (1997) states that the effective leadership is characterized by effective administrative leadership; positive expectations; strong, integrated curriculum; shared decision making: and campus wide responsibility for teaching and success. In the effective school, the principal acts as an instructional leader and effectively and continually communicates the mission of the school to staff, parents, and students. In addition, the principal understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program. (Lezotte, 2001 as quoted by David J. Kirk 2004) states that clearly, the role of the principal as the articulator of the mission of the school is crucial to the overall effectiveness of the school. Effective instructional leaders also ensure that school programs, procedures, and practices focus on the learning and achievement of all students and support the social and emotional development necessary for students to attain academic success. ”Show me a good school, and I will show you a good principal (Barth,1990,p.64). The statement reasons that a principal is a paramount for attaining educational improvement, developing professional teachers, and creating conducive school culture, that is why the task of being a principal is demanding, requiring energy drive, and many personal qualities and attributes. Principals, involved in the day-to-day management of their schools, need to take time to reflect on their personal growth as leaders and managers. The expectations of principals have moved from demands of management and control to the demands for an educational leader who can foster staff development, parent involvement, community support, learner growth, and succeed with major changes and expectations (Raj Mestry & Prakash Singh,2007).

Studies have suggested that effective instructional leadership of principals take on the role of instructional leadership when they exhibit pedagogical expertise and other qualities deemed valuable to teachers and other members of the school community (e.g. Marks & Printy, 2003;Spillanale et,al,2001). Effective instructional leaders create a school culture of high expectations conducive to the success of all students so schools need effective leaders to communicate the school’s mission and vision. By persistently reinforcing the school’s mission, the principal creates a shared sense of purpose and establishes a set of common core values among the instructional staff. To sum up, principals can play a pivotal role in the improvement of student learning. Consequently, there is widespread agreement that principals should function as instructional leaders.