0.2 3. a paradigm shift in preparing instructional leaders revisited  (Page 2/9)

Despite emphasis on increased student achievement to comply with federal regulations, a large number of schools succumbed to the pressure of high-stakes testing. Hoff (2008) discovered that “almost 30,000 schools in the United States failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress. . .in the 2007-2008 year,” and “half of those schools missed their achievement goals for two or more years, putting almost one in five of the nation’s public schools in some stage of a federally mandated process to improve student achievement” (p. 36).

Efforts to stem the number of failing schools prompted state and local boards of education to assess the quality of their school leaders, curriculums and teaching standards, and performance expectations. NCLB’s language was unambiguous about its requirement that schools use research-based best practices in classrooms, but made no mention of principals as instructional leaders. Despite a lack of clarity over the principal’s role as instructional leader or building manager, the federal government prescribed standards that students were expected to meet. State and local boards of education were to decide how they would comply with NCLB’s requirements. Consequently, the purposes of this paper are to describe instructional leadership program redesign efforts at the University of South Alabama (USA) and to present data obtained from four distinct assessments of the program’s efficacy.

Redesign at the usa

Developing new courses

Thelbert L. Drake and William H. Roe (1994) reviewed job advertisements for principal vacancies in 1992 and found that they rarely emphasized the managerial side of the principalship by using vague and effusive phrases, such as “a catalyst for program improvement; an outstanding instructional leader and team builder” (p. 27). They concluded, however, that the dichotomy in terminology between instructional leader and school manager was framed clearly in board of education and central office practices by giving “top priority to handling of management detail, discipline, and evaluation” (p. 27).

Alabama’s governor, upon learning that nearly 77 percent of the state’s public schools failed to make AYP in 2004-2005, convened a Congress on Education in 2005 to garner suggestions about improving Alabama’s schools from civic and business leaders, educators, and the public. After several months of deliberation, the Congress offered several recommendations, including a suggestion that the State Board of Education (SBE) adopt new Quality Teaching Standards designed to improve pre-service teacher preparation programs in the state’s colleges of education.

The Congress also recommended revamping Alabama’s educational administration programs. Its members had begun to realize that one of NCLB’s unintended consequences was its implicit restructuring of “the principal’s role as an instructional leader and the amount of time and collaboration required from school leaders to help teachers improve their teaching skills” (Gray, 2010, p. 2). The state’s principal-preparation programs were mired in 1980s principal-as-manager methodology and largely ignored the paradigm shift to instructional leadership and improved student learning.