The Scope of Principal Efforts to Improve Instruction
Abstract
Researchers have used many angles and perspectives to investigate how principals enact instructional leadership in schools. Most research has emphasized the practices of school leaders, although investigations of leadership styles and leadership processes are also present in the literature. In this study, the authors take a different approach by examining the scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Scope of principal effort refers to the extent to which principals target or distribute their instructionally oriented work with teachers. Using data from principal web logs and teacher surveys conducted in 51 schools in an urban southeastern district, the authors develop models to examine not only differences in average instructional change at the school level but also variability in instructional change across teachers within schools. The results indicate that the scope of principals’ instructional leadership activities varies from one school to the next, from very broad approaches that target the entire faculty to very targeted approaches that focus on a few teachers, and that the frequency of a principal’s instructional leadership activities with an individual teacher is directly related to the magnitude of instructional changes reported by that teacher. These findings support the notion that principals who focus on the improvement of particular teachers in conjunction with broader approaches can produce greater changes in instructional practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Principals play a key role in supporting professional growth among teachers by serving as instructional leaders who provide targeted feedback and facilitate opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice.
“Principals play a key role in supporting professional growth among teachers by serving as instructional leaders who provide targeted feedback and facilitate opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice (Blase & Blase, 1999; May & Supovitz, 2011; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).”
From Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience (2014) · cites this paper as May & Supovitz, 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373713519496 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016) · Educational Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0013161x16653445 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
- Authors
- May, H., & Supovitz, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Supovitz, Jonathan A.
- Venue
- Educational Administration Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-10-19
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 332-352
- ISSN
- 0013-161X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3519
- OpenAlex
- W2111959475
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 33.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Administration Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
- Keywords
- instructional leadership, school principals, instructional change, teacher professional development, principal-teacher relations, leadership styles, leadership process, urban schools
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review