Tight Control or Teacher Autonomy? Instructional Leadership in a Developing Teacher Professional Community in a China School

• In Event: School Leadership in Chinese Society: Impact of Academic Research on School Improvement

Abstract

Research has documented the positive impact of instructional leadership on student learning through enhancing school learning environment and teacher practices (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Bryk, et al. 2010). However, scholars also raise concerns that close instructional supervision by school leadership may result in micro-controls of teachers’ work, hence an encroachment on teachers’ professional autonomy (Hargreaves and Dawe, 1990; Lee, Walker & Chui, 2012). How to walk this fine line is a challenge facing many principals. This research is intended to offer some answers to this challenge by examining the practices of instructional leadership that has successfully restructured a struggling school in Shanghai, China.

This case study draws on in-depth qualitative data collected over a period of one semester in 2011. Formal interviews were conducted with the principal, key members in the school management, and about a quarter of the entire teaching staff (100 or so). Intensive school observation was carried out for a full week at the beginning of the semester to understand the school’s routine schedule, followed by weekly school visit for one day to observe various instructional activities. The researcher shadowed the principal for three full work days to observe leadership practices.

Our findings show that the principal and management team exercised strong instructional leadership to closely supervise and monitor teachers’ instructional practices. However, teachers did not perceive the tight instructional control as contradictory to their autonomy. We argue that the secret lies in the function of instructional leadership in nurturing a collaborative teacher professional community in the school.

The teachers were organized into diverse teaching and research groups and teams or paired as mentor and apprentice. Regular and frequent teachers meetings at various scales were instituted for collective lesson planning, sharing resources, demonstration lesson observation, student data analysis, setting learning objectives, and so forth. Teaching was deprivatized to allow teachers to come in and out of each other’s classes. Almost all these activities are under close supervision and monitoring of the school management. For instance, the time, venue, topic, participants of these collaborative meetings were carefully reviewed and approved by the academic office headed by a vice principal. The principal and the administrative members randomly observed lessons without prior notice and attended teachers’ group meetings regularly, to identify problems and to offer constructive suggestions. While teachers admitted feeling higher pressures under the meticulous instructional management, they in general appreciated the school leadership as facilitating rather than constraining their professional growth.

Author

• Dan Wang, Syracuse University