This paper provides a comprehensive overview of curriculum and instructional leadership as a model within the educational context. It traces the concept's origins to 19th-century inspection systems in England, North America, and Australia, and examines its evolution through to contemporary practice. The paper outlines the model's four major components — curriculum, instruction, staff development, and foundations — and analyzes its key strengths, including the promotion of collaborative learning environments and improved student outcomes. It also addresses notable weaknesses and limitations, particularly the model's insufficient support for developing new instructional skills and its tendency to undermine administrative leadership functions.
A commitment to lifelong and self-directed learning is essential for effective learning-centered curriculum and instructional leaders. These leaders need a deeper understanding of the ways students learn and their varying levels of achievement. In most cases, effective instructional leaders are extremely committed and actively involved in both curricular and instructional issues that directly impact student accomplishment ("What is Instructional Leadership?" 2005). Currently, efficient school leadership must combine traditional leadership duties — such as evaluation, scheduling, facility maintenance, and budgeting — with increased engagement in specific teaching and learning concerns. The creation of a professional learning environment in which students constantly improve their knowledge and skills requires a thorough understanding of how learning occurs. Consequently, curriculum and instructional leadership plays a critical role in this process, as leaders must place curriculum and instruction at the forefront of their priorities ("Leadership Professional Development Policy," 2009).
Since curriculum and instructional leadership is broadly referred to as instructional leadership, it is a concept with a long history that can be traced back to the 19th century. The concept emerged through inspection systems in England, North America, and Australia. The model gained popularity in America during the 1970s due to increased emphasis on the instructional dimension as a core responsibility of the principal. While the concept does not have a single clear definition, it has continued to evolve since that time. The main role and responsibility of the principal during the emergence of this model was instructional leadership and curriculum improvement (Gurr & Drysdale, n.d.). Due to the ambiguity of its definitions, the concept remains complex because of the numerous interpretations of what a curriculum and instructional leader actually does.
The current approach to instructional leadership involves either direct engagement in curricular and instructional issues or the delegation of these responsibilities — by superintendents — to principals, institutional directors, and teachers. Superintendents who delegate such responsibilities need a greater understanding of the necessary instructional strategies and the use of data to guide decision-making.
Some of the major components of the model include curriculum, instruction, staff development, and foundations (Morton, Burke & Rice, 2008). The curriculum component encompasses the knowledge and theory considered most valuable and how that knowledge can be developed, structured, and taught to achieve learning outcomes. Instruction refers to the delivery system of the curriculum, while staff development addresses the continual improvement of employee performance. The foundations component incorporates the impact of culture, values and beliefs, learner needs, knowledge about learning, and prevailing social trends.
"Collaborative learning and improved student outcomes"
"Gaps in skill development support and administrative balance"
Curriculum and instructional leadership is an appropriate model within the educational context because it promotes student development both within and outside the classroom environment. This approach is quite effective in educational settings because it helps schools cultivate the leadership needed from principals who focus on advancing staff and student learning.
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.