The research resulting from this movement revealed that a principal is critical to success in children's learning within poor urban elementary schools.
[1][2][3][4] This research revealed that the personality characteristics of the ideal principal are strong mindedness, directness, top-down management and charisma.
[5] Moreover, the accountability movement of the 21st century sheds new light on instructional leadership since this paradigm puts more emphasis on the learning outcomes for students.
Especially, Marks and Printy (2003)[9] have pointed out the importance of the collaboration between principals and teachers to develop curriculum and instruction for improving pupils' performance.
This distinction is due to the fact that a direct perspective focuses only on immediate actions related to instruction, such as classroom observation and curriculum development, whereas an indirect perspective broadly focuses on indirect activities, such as creating the school climate, as well as direct activities.
Duke(1982)[15] suggested six functions of instructional leadership related to teacher and school effectiveness: 1) Staff development: recruitment, in-service education, and staff motivation, 2) Instructional support: organized activities to maintain an environmentgeared towards improving teaching and learning, 3) Resource acquisition and allocation: adequate learning materials, appropriate facilities, and skilled support personnel 4) Quality control: evaluation, supervision, rewards, and sanctions, 5) Coordination: activities that prevent cross-purposes or duplicate operations, and 6) Troubleshooting: anticipation and resolution of problems in school operation.
Andrew, Bascom, and Bascom (1991)[16] defined four strategies that instructional leaders use to enhance student achievement: 1) Resource provider: provision of resources to attain learning goals, 2) Instructional resource: provision of strategies and skills to achieve better teaching practice, opportunities for professional development, and assessment for school performance related to instruction, 3) Communicator: promoting discussion among school members about school vision, goals, and culture for successful learning, and 4) Visible presence: showing up through face-to-face interaction as well as through informal exchanges in day-to-day activities.
Through extensive literature review, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004)[5] identified that instructional leaders have several macro-school-level functions.
A study by Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998)[17][18] reviewed extensive empirical research conducted between 1980 and 1995 about the effects of principals on student achievement and identified three models to describe these (1996, p. 16; 1998, p. 162).
Also, critics point out that this approach does not reveal through what hidden process school leaders impact on student performance.
It found that principals significantly impact students' performance through other mediating variables, such as other school staff, events or organizational factors.
In this sense, the effort to measure the effects of instructional leadership without consideration of the school context might be avoided in empirical research.