Changing Principal Supervision to Develop Principals' Instructional Leadership Capacity

• In Event: New Advances in the Preparation, Supervision, and Evaluation of Principals

Abstract

Objectives, Data, and Methods. This study examined ways in which principal supervisors develop and support principals to enhance their instructional leadership capacity. Over the past decade, the principal supervisor role has shifted away from administrative oversight toward developing principals’ instructional leadership capacity (Corcoran et al., 2013; Goldring et al., 2018; Honig et al., 2010). We drew on data collected as part of a research study of the Principal Supervisor Initiative (PSI), an intensive, four-year district change effort in six urban school districts. The PSI focused on changing principal supervision to a model focused on principal development and support that emphasized instructional leadership. The study followed the districts throughout the initiative. This study drew on over 200 interviews with central office staff, principal supervisors, and principals during two rounds of site visits to each of the districts in summer 2015 and fall 2016. The interviews focused on understanding how supervisors and principals worked together as they changed the principal supervisor role.
Perspective. We begin by describing the vision and logic of the initiative and the revised principal supervisor role. We next present the new principal supervisor role as it unfolded in the districts, focusing on interactions between principal supervisors and principals, thus providing rich descriptions of what they did as they engaged in instructional leadership development. We unpack what principals and supervisors did together to understand instructional quality and the activities, practices, and routines that were central to their work. We also demonstrate the importance of supervisors’ own learning, which gave them the skills necessary to carry out the new role and built consistency of practice. We highlight prominent challenges that districts faced in working to change the principal supervisor role, including instructional capacity, organizational change, and interrelationships. These challenges provide insights into why some districts had greater traction than others in transforming how supervisors worked with principals. Hopefully, these serve as cautionary examples for districts leaders who wish to engage in this type of shift.
Findings and Significance. Key findings highlight the need for central office instructional staff, supervisors, and principals to have clarity regarding what constitutes high-quality instruction and instructional leadership as a prerequisite for engaging in instructional leadership development. Supervisors also needed the knowledge and skills to engage in work related to instruction, which necessitated training and support for principal supervisors. More broadly, training opportunities for principal supervisors increased their collaboration and fostered the emergence of a common set of activities that defined the work between principals and their supervisors. Some of these activities existed prior to the PSI, but the intentional focus on instruction infused the practices with an instructional lens. A focus on instruction also resulted in the development and use of common tools, systemization of practices across supervisors, and increased consistency in interactions between principals and their supervisors.

Authors

• Mollie Rubin, Vanderbilt University

• Ellen B. Goldring, Vanderbilt University

• Michael Alan Neel, Vanderbilt University

• Laura K. Rogers, University of Utah

• Jason A. Grissom, Vanderbilt University