Learning leaders leading for learning

The leadership practice of superintendents spans three domains: instructional, managerial, and political (Johnson, 1996; Cuban, 1998; Nestor-Baker and Hoy, 2001; Lashaway, 2002). Despite the fact that superintendents lead organizations whose main business is teaching and learning, they spend most of their time in the political and managerial realms (Nestor-Baker and Hoy, 2001). With the advent of standards-based reform and the accountability movement, superintendents are expected to take more of a prominent role as instructional leaders (Elmore, 2007; Anthes, 2002; Lashaway, 2002; King, 2002). However, professional learning opportunities for superintendents, especially where they can sharpen their skills as instructional leaders, are still quite rare (Mitgang, 2009; Teitel, 2009; Helsing and Lemons, 2008). One notable exception is Instructional Rounds Networks for Superintendents.

In this study, I sought to find out what superintendents learn about instructional leadership as participants in a Superintendents Instructional Rounds Network. Additionally, I wanted to find out how superintendents apply their learning back in their districts, especially in their efforts to improve others' practice. The findings of this study reveal that the superintendents' experiences in the instructional rounds network are elevating the importance of the educational domain of their work. In addition, all three of the superintendents have brought back some of the practices of instructional rounds to their districts and have introduced these practices to district and school-based leaders. Notably, the intersection of teacher evaluation systems and instructional rounds, although carried out in different ways in the three districts, was a common theme that emerged. This finding has important implications for the network and its superintendents, especially as it pertains to superintendents' roles in the implementation of internal and external accountability systems and in their creation of architectures for learning that lead to large-scale instructional improvement. There is evidence that the superintendents are strengthening their instructional leadership as a result of participating in the network by building their skills as learners and teachers. The next level of work for the superintendents and their network is strengthening their roles as architects and boundary spanners who are able to navigate external mandates while building internal cultures of learning.