Tracy Reimer

Sustainability: More than Instructional Leadership

Best Practices in Instructional Leadership (March 2007)

Tracy Reimer, principal
Bendix Elementary, Annandale

The No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) has brought resurgence to the basics, reading and math, at the elementary school level. Stakeholders measure our schools by the number of stars on our report card and the percentage of students meeting proficiency on state tests. This public form of accountability has elicited increased attention to tested subject areas and concern for at-risk students. NCLB’s distinction between subgroups (minority, poverty, special education) and requirement for all students to reach proficiency by the year 2014 are captured in the words of Deborah Meier, “The question is not, Is it possible to educate all children well? But rather, do we want to do it badly enough?”

Elementary principals have responded with a renewed focus on their role as instructional leader. Principals work diligently implementing standards-based reform via supervising and participating in detailed studies of the Minnesota academic standards and aligning standards with literacy and math curriculum. Accountability for results and the high stakes associated with measurable outcomes spurs leaders to seek guidance from the research community. Instruction itself was highlighted by multiple research study findings reporting “improved classroom instruction as the prime factor to produce student achievement gains” (Odden & Wallace, p. 64). Research publications endorse best practice instructional strategies: best practice defined as strategies proven effective in boosting student achievement. Elementary principals have concentrated on analyzing assessment results, understanding new standards, and implementing best practice.

The achievement gap continues. While these efforts impacted classroom instruction and led to an overall rise in student achievement, this would not be true of reducing the achievement gap (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). National and state government leaders proclaimed victory for the initial gains waiving the flag of “accountability” as the impetus for improvements. As years have progressed, student achievement has begun to plateau. Political leaders express disappointment, but the phenomenon should not be a surprise as it has been documented in previous studies (Department for Education and Skills, 2004). Short-term gains have been achieved, but sustained improvement has not. Michael Fullan states that centrally (district/state) driven reforms can boost achievement but “can never carry the day of sustainability.” (p.7)

Schools need sustainability. Fullan defines sustainability as the “capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose.” (p. ix) It is “leadership” that produces this level of reform. Leadership is not viewed as owned by a traditional leader, rather there are educators who involve themselves to a lesser or greater degree in leadership actions. Longer-term, sustainable reform requires the deep ownership of teachers and principals. A principal needs to support and empower teachers in order to achieve sustainability. Roland Barth summarizes it succinctly, “All teachers can lead! Most teachers want to lead. And schools badly need their ideas, invention, energy, and leadership.”

A principal striving for sustainability is focused on more than particular practices (though practices are imperative to gains), but also on building collaborative relationships and structures for improvement. Successful schools have collaborative cultures in which administrators and teachers work as a team with a common commitment to initiatives that ensure success for all. It has been shown that if schools work as teams, there is much sharing of expertise so that all students benefit from the most effective instruction available.

A mechanism promoting sustainability is a Professional Learning Community. Professional learning communities allow people to talk across grade levels, departments, and schools within a district. “This simple, powerful structure starts with a group of teachers who meet regularly as a team to identify essential and valued student learning, develop common formative assessments, analyze current levels of achievement, set achievement goals, and then share and create lessons to improve upon those levels” (Schmoker, p. 176).

In summary, short-term gains can be made through the leadership of a principal, but true sustainability requires a new schema of reform that encourages collaboration and leadership among teachers . . . the very individuals truly touching our children each day.

References
Booth, D., & Rowsell, J. (2002) The literacy principal: leading, supporting, and assessing reading and writing initiatives. Markham, Ontario, Canada: Pembroke Publishers. ISBN 155138146X.

Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Results of school reform in England. London:Author.

Feuer, M.J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R.J. (2005). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Research, 31 (8), 4-14.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leaderships & sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, ISBN1412904951

Kim, J.S., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the no child left behind act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.

McAndrew, D. A. (2005). Literacy leadership: Six strategies for peoplework. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association. ISBN 0872075567.

Odden, A., & Wallace, M.J. (2003). Leveraging teacher pay. Education Week, 22 (43), 64.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN 1416603580.