K-12 educational issues and challenges

K-12 Interview

Principal Interview and Analysis

Self-Perception as a Leader

Ruth Pohlman, the principal of Rush Strong Elementary in Jefferson County, Tennessee, brings several decades of experience as an educator and an administrator with her every day to her job at the kindergarten through eighth-grade institution. Her background as a former teacher as well as her training and experience as a school administrator both contribute to the way in which she perceives and performs her duties as an instructional leader as well as a school administrator; her decisions are made with the welfare and education of the students at the school as her primary concern (Pohlman 2010). Ms. Pohlman does not simply keep these factors in mind in the day-to-day decisions that she makes during the performance of her job, but the principal also incorporates them into her grand view of her primary role as Rush Strong Elementary's instructional leader.

In carrying out this role of instructional leadership, which Pohlman cites as the primary responsibility of school administrators in general, the Rush Strong Elementary principal believes that she must incorporate the views and ideas of the school's teachers in all curriculum- and instruction-related decisions (Pohlman). She views her job as principal as primarily that of a guide and steward of the educational needs of the students and goals of the instructors, rather than a manager and director of the teachers as employees and their individual curricula as integrated projects. Integration of the various instructional goals and needs is, of course, an essential part of the principal's task, but instead of personally designing and dictating this integration, Pohlman attempts to craft it through comprehensive contributions (Pohlman 2010).

Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement

Two instructional leadership actions that Ms. Pohlman has practiced that have been demonstrated to explicitly and directly influence the quality of instruction, as measured by increases in student achievement, are assisting in the establishment and reinforcement of social norms and the provision of "extensive teacher input" in developing curriculum and making major instructional and educational policy decisions (Seyfarth 1995, pp. 14-5). The establishment of norms comes from Ms. Pohlman's regular presence in front of students, in classrooms and in broader functions involving entire grade groups and at times the entire collected student body, in roles that affirm the school's behavioral codes and good citizenship goals. Regular meetings with staff and an operating open-door policy helps to ensure the continued regular input of the school's instructors (Pohlman 2010).

By helping to establish the normative social expectations at the school, Pohlman hopes to make the learning environment free of distractions and stressors inasmuch as is possible. The establishment of clear norms and behaviors through repeated affirmations and emulations of these behaviors makes the non-instructional expectations of the school environment clear, enabling students and instructors to focus more on the work that takes place in the classroom (Pohlman 2010). The integration of teacher input on school-wide policies and curriculum decisions is meant to both better motivate teachers and to ensure that the material being taught and the manner of instruction is suited to the strengths of each instructor. Both of these measures are expected to improve school performance (Pohlman 2010; Seyfarth 1995).

Philosophy of Curriculum Development

Though each individual classroom and instructor operates on a largely independent basis, the philosophy and practicalities of Ms. Pohlman's approach to instructional leadership and the functioning of Rush Strong Elementary according to her description exemplifies an instance of coupling that is more tight than loose (Glickman et al. 2007). There is a great deal of integration and guidance of the individual and independent instructors and instructional methods; this guidance is the result of independent input, but provides a clear overarching structure to the institution and the instructional methods and goals (Pohlman 2010). This is the reason that Ms. Pohlman's philosophy is best classified as leaning towards tight rather than loose coupling (Glickman et al. 2007).

Despite the fact that Ms. Pohlman's instructional leadership philosophy favors tight rather than loose coupling, she does not attempt to exert total control over her instructors, their instructional methods, or the curricula taught in the school. Ms. Pohlman is explicitly and decidedly against the concept of "teacher-proof" curricula as described in Glickman et al. (2007). The teachers are expected and encouraged to be actively involved in the development and implementation not only of their own curricula, but also for the integration of school-wide curricula in order to ensure a lack of redundancies, a comprehensiveness, and the proper progression of education and knowledge requirement for the students (Pohlman 2010). This approach to curriculum development and design is completely antithetical to the concept of "teacher-proof" curricula.