Improving Performance through Instructional Leadership

Dec 31, 2017 Education Corner, Features / Columnists

---

By Olato Sam

As the New Year and new school term begin, Heads of institutions have an ideal opportunity to improve on a crucial dimension of their existing leadership repertoire. A key dimension of effective leadership at the school level requires that our Heads regard themselves as not merely the administrative heads of institutions but also the instructional leaders.
Heads, for their own professional advancement should regard this as a critical growth dimension and appreciate and internalize all facets and expectations of instructional leadership. This equips them with the skill sets necessary to begin addressing the output dimensions of their respective institutions and chart a course for continuous growth and development.
Our students’ academic outcomes are our primary focus, yet for too long, too many of our schools have operated without performance accountability structures. There has been no mechanism through which school Heads are called on to evaluate and give account for the academic output of their institutions.
Experience has taught us, however, that centralized accountability is insufficient in bringing about the desired improvements in this regard. It is not something that should ideally be imposed through the policy framework of the Ministry of Education but should be a natural outgrowth of the desire on the part of Heads and teachers themselves to consistently demonstrate progress in their practice.
School with effective leaders devise their own accountability frameworks and hold themselves accountable for the performance of their students. Accomplished educators define their instruction by the extent to which effective learning takes place. As such, the evaluation of progress in this regard is part of the professional responsibility of educators which also entails a search for solutions to overcome any deficiencies that are unearthed.
Prior to the commencement of the new term, Heads should engage all of their teachers in exercises to examine the extent to which the goals they have set for the institution are being attained. If in the off-chance—and I do emphasize off-chance—no goals were set for the academic year, this would be a good wake-up call for the setting of same for the remainder of the year.
Too often, institutions fail to recognize the value of taking stock of where they are over these breaks and move on to the next term’s work at the expense of the growth that can occur through such an evaluative exercise. The recently concluded end-of-term assessments results are useful data in this regard and must not be treated as ends on to themselves but should be compared with the diagnostic data collected at the commencement of the school year.
In the absence of such baseline/diagnostic data, the existing standards are a good guide against which one can gauge the progress of students. Where weaknesses have been uncovered, it is incumbent on the teachers to devise strategies for overcoming same prior to the introduction of new material which failing students would be unable to grasp.
The consistent failure to use assessment data to inform pedagogical decisions more relevant to the needs of the children has been a significant contributor to the failure rates noted in many institutions.
Another important aspect of instructional leadership involves leading teacher learning and development. Heads must evaluate the effectiveness of their teachers and place them on a professional development pathway. The once trained, always trained mindset is outmoded and Heads must devise consistent professional development opportunities that specifically target the instructional needs of their teachers.
There is ample evidence that the weaknesses of students often times mirror those of their teachers, as such, any attempt to improve performance must zero in on the needs of our teachers. To this end, the National Centre for Educational Resource Development, Departments of Education, the Cyril Potter College of Education and the Faculty of Education at the University, must all be important partners for Heads to access the resources and support for devising relevant continuous professional development activities.
Heads should be resourceful enough to tap into the existing institutional arrangements to secure the necessary human and material resources needed for their professional development agenda. In addition, the topic areas and activities of the long-standing Cluster sessions and Subject Committee Meetings should all be fashioned out of these demonstrated needs.
Teachers should find themselves immersed in a consistent professional growth experience that is tailored as best as possible to their demonstrated needs. Such needs must be evidence based, emerging from honest appraisals of teacher competence on the one hand and supported by student performance data where possible.
It must be emphasized that the needs of students cannot be addressed in isolation and demand an examination and attention paid to the needs of teachers. The laptops our teachers now possess should be utilized to further these efforts, creating a community of learners who can share experiences, access best practices and support each other in becoming better practitioners.
Even further, attention must be given to the existing curriculum, its relevance and effectiveness with the specific context within which the school exists. The curriculum is not a decree that must be slavishly adhered to at the expense of effective learning, as is practised in some quarters. Often times teachers declare with pride that they have covered the curriculum while failing to recognize the emptiness of such an accomplishment if their charges have not mastered the content.
The curriculum should be regarded as guides for ideal circumstances. Instructional leaders develop relevant routines and structures that promote learning. They recognize where adjustments need to be made in the interest of the students’ development and lead exercises to address same.
They devise justifiable alternative instructional plans, secure buy-in for the approaches they have adopted and monitor the progress of students vis-à-vis these approaches. No two schools are the same, and by the same token no two classes are the same; as such, school leaders need to be savvy enough in working with teachers in prescribing what is appropriate for their respective cohorts within the context of the standards established and move away from the one-size-fits-all approach that has led to underachievement.
Where the competence of the students takes precedence, effective learning takes place and teachers can recognize the progress they are making.
If instructional leaders are to effectively improve teacher and student learning, they need the enabling environment within which they can operate. They must feel empowered to make the required innovations geared towards the realization of the performance goals they have established for their institutions.
This requires effective communication, monitoring and supervision of the practice of their teachers with the sure confidence that they will be supported by their respective Departments of Education. The degree of empowerment and innovation necessary in this regard does not flourish within command and comply institutional arrangements.
As such, the management and supervisory approaches and structures at the level of the Departments of Education are critically important to fostering the type of growth needed on the part of Heads to emerge as the instructional leaders required for improved performance of students.

---

---