REFLECTION ON PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
AND SUPERVISION
The increasing emphasis on managing teaching and learning as the core activities of educational
institutions has led to ‘instructional leadership’ being emphasised. Instructional leadership is the
longest established concept linking leadership and learning. However, several other terms may be
used to describe this relationship, including pedagogic leadership, curriculum leadership and
leadership for learning. Despite its prominence and longevity, instructional leadership has been
criticised on two grounds. First, it is perceived to be primarily concerned with teaching rather
than learning (Bush, 2013). The second criticism is that it ‘focused too much on the principal as
the centre of expertise, power and authority’ (Hallinger, 2003: 330). As a consequence, it tends to
ignore or underplay the role of other leaders such as deputy principals, middle managers,
leadership teams, and classroom teachers. Hallinger and Heck (2010) note that, in the twenty-
first century, instructional leadership has been ‘reincarnated’ as ‘leadership for learning’. This
tends to stress shared or distributed leadership, counteracting the principal-centric approach of
the instructional model. The second is a focus on learning, in contrast to the teaching-centred
dimension of instructional leadership. Robinson’s (2007: 21) meta-analysis of published research
shows that ‘the closer leaders are to the core business of teaching and learning, the more likely
they are to make a difference to students’. This indicates that instructional leadership effects are
much greater than those of other leadership models, a view confirmed by Shatzer et al. (2013).
The recent emphasis on instructional leadership is based largely on practice in decentralised and
partly decentralised contexts, where principals have substantial scope to decide how to lead and
manage their schools (Bush & Glover, 2014). However, there is emerging evidence (e.g. Bush et
al., 2018 in Malaysia; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013 in Turkey; Hallinger & Lee, 2014 in Thailand;
and Kaparou & Bush, 2015 in Greece) that governments of centralised systems, which encourage
or prescribe instructional leadership, may be disappointed, as principals are reluctant to move
away from their traditional managerial approaches. Instructional leadership is different to the
other models in focusing on the direction rather than the process of leadership. It says little about
the process by which instructional leadership is to be developed. It focuses on the ‘what’, rather
than the ‘how’, of educational leadership. In this respect, it is limited and partial, and has to be
considered alongside other models.
The concept of management has been joined, or superseded, by the language of leadership but
the activities undertaken by principals and senior staff resist such labels. Successful leaders are
increasingly focused on learning, the central and unique purpose of educational organisations.
They also face unprecedented accountability pressures in many countries in what is clearly an
increasingly ‘results driven’ business. As these environmental pressures intensify, leaders and
managers require greater understanding, skill and resilience to sustain their institutions. Heads,
principals and senior staff need an appreciation of the theory, as well as the practice, of
educational management (Bush & Glover, 2014).
Theory is one of the four essential building blocks of school leadership. Alongside policy,
research and practice, it provides helpful insights into how schools are led and managed. The
theory of leadership is important for two main reasons. First, it provides a way of understanding
and interpreting the actions of leaders. The models outlined in this chapter provide lenses to
view, and to comprehend, the ways in which leadership is enacted in schools. Second,
understanding theory provides a guide to leadership practice for principals and other leaders. It
widens horizons and avoids drawing only on the inevitably limited individual or collective
experience of any school’s leaders. Each of the leadership models discussed in this paper is
partial. They provide distinct but uni-dimensional perspectives on school leadership. They are
also artificial distinctions, or ‘ideal types’, in that most successful leaders are likely to embody
most or all of these approaches in their work. For example, heads may aspire to develop
distributed instructional leadership. We noted earlier that leadership theory is subject to fashion
and that models increase and decrease in perceived importance over time. The reasons for such
changes are not always apparent. Recent evidence in England (Leithwood et al., 2006), and
internationally (Robinson, 2007), provides powerful empirical support for the widely accepted
view that the quality of leadership is a critical variable in securing positive school and learner
outcomes. Leadership is second only to classroom teaching in its potential to generate school
improvement. However, much less is known about how leaders impact on outcomes. While
‘quick fix’ solutions to school under-performance, often involving strong managerial leadership,
can produce short-term improvement, sustainable progress is much harder to achieve. The
leadership typology discussed in this paper provides many clues for heads, senior and middle
leaders, and senior leadership teams. Managerial leadership, operating through the hierarchy, can
mandate clearly targeted change, such as a stronger focus on examination and test scores.
However, this often depends on a single leader and may not lead to sustainable change.
Transformational leadership approaches aim to widen commitment to school-wide objectives,
through the development of shared vision, but the ‘vision’ is often that of the head or principal
with acquiescence, rather than genuine commitment, from teachers and other staff.
