Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Exploring instructional 1–22
ª The Author(s) 2019

leadership in Iran: A mixed Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143219836684
methods study of high- and journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

low-performing principals

Philip Hallinger and Rezvan Hosseingholizadeh

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand and describe patterns of principal instructional lead-
ership practice in Iranian primary schools and to then assess whether there are differences
between the high- and low-rated principals. A mixed methods design was used to collect both
qualitative and quantitative data from principals and teachers within Iranian primary schools. The
quantitative data were collected and analyzed from 535 teachers and 70 principals across the 70
primary schools. Next, we used ratings on the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale to
identify four of the highest and lowest performing principals. We then conducted open-ended
interviews with teachers and principals in these schools. The key findings showed that, despite
working in a highly centralized context, the highly ranked principals in the sample were also dif-
ferentiated from their lower ranked peers on specific instructional leadership practices. They
appeared to give more emphasis to their role in developing the quality of teaching and learning and
monitoring student progress. In this setting, ensuring a collegial and collaborative environment for
teachers is commonly articulated by the successful principals in our study as an important aspect of
instructional leadership.

Keywords
Principal instructional leadership, Iran, high- and low-performing principals, primary schools

Introduction
Three decades of research have emphasized the role of “principal instructional leadership” in
school effectiveness and school improvement (Hung and Ponnusamy, 2010; Leithwood et al.,
2008; Mestry et al., 2013; Salo et al., 2015). The global interest in educational reform centering
on student learning has led to a focus on school leadership in general and instructional leadership in
particular (Pashiardis and Johansson, 2016). With its emergence out of research on “instructionally

Corresponding author:
Rezvan Hosseingholizadeh, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan 00000, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: [email protected]
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

effective primary schools” (Edmonds, 1979), instructional leadership was initially conceived as a
role carried out by the school principal (Murphy, 1988). As instructional leaders, school principals
are expected to focus on promoting best practices in teaching and learning so that students achieve
academic success (Ng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2017; Salo et al., 2015).
Today, it is widely accepted that instructional leadership achieves its effects on students’
learning through teachers’ practices (Boyce and Bowers, 2018; Coelli and Green, 2012; Day
et al., 2016; Salo et al., 2015). For example, research has established the contribution of teacher
learning to school improvement and education reform (Day et al., 2016; Lieberman and Pointer-
Mace, 2008). At the same time, however, the school context shapes the type of instructional
leadership needed in the school and which is exercised by principals. Thus, some scholars have
argued that research should both take into account and describe the context-specific conditions that
bear upon the enactment of instructional leadership in different school settings (e.g. Hallinger,
2003; Hallinger and Wang, 2015; Ng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2017).
With these global trends in mind, we undertook this study with the aim of understanding the
instructional leadership practices of Iranian primary school principals. The study employed a
sequential explanatory, mixed methods design (Creswell, 2014) to examine the practice of instruc-
tional leadership within the Iranian primary schools. The goals of the present study were first to
describe patterns of principal instructional leadership practice and then to assess whether there
were differences between high- and low-rated principals. It is hoped that this research will add to
the growing global body of research on principal instructional leadership (e.g. Hallinger et al.,
2017; Bellibas, 2014; Day et al., 2016; Kalman and Arslan, 2016; Ng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2017;
Qian et al., 2017).

Conceptual background
The education context of school leadership in Iran
The education system in the Islamic Republic of Iran is highly centralized and divided into K–12
education and higher education. Most key policy and planning decisions are made by the central
authorities. Local education units serve as the implementation arms of the Ministry of Education
(Aliakbari and Sadeghi, 2014; Arani et al., 2012; Paivandi, 2012; Sajjadi, 2015). The Fourth Five-
Year Development Plan (2005–2010) has envisaged upgrading the quality of the education system
at all levels, as well as reforming the national curriculum.
The Fundamental Reform Document of Education serves as the cornerstone of education
initiatives in Iran’s 2025 vision (National Education For All report of Islamic Republic of Iran,
2000–2015). Reforms can be grouped into four categories: curriculum reform, legislation reform,
policy reform, and teacher training reform (Paivandi, 2012).
A national school improvement program called Tadbir is the vehicle for education reform in
Iran’s primary schools. Its main goal is to improve school performance through the development of
teaching and learning quality. Tadbir particularly focuses on engaging school staff in decision-
making and continuous evaluation (Ministry of Education Iran, 2018).
National curriculum reforms and restructuring initiated in 2011 created a new “institutional
context” for school leaders and teachers. It has forced teachers to shift their teaching from
“teacher-centered” and “content-centered” to “student-centered” approaches. To improve teach-
ers’ knowledge and skills, the Ministry of Education’s Bureau for the Scientific Promotion of
Human Resources has developed short-term courses and workshops for teachers (Aliakbari and
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 3

Sadeghi, 2014; Moghaddam et al., 2015; Navidinia et al., 2015; National Study Center for TIMSS
and PIRLS, 2015; Saberi and Amiri, 2016; UNESCO, 2016). These new expectations also high-
light the need for principals who are more active in leading teachers in the development of teaching
and learning (Aliakbari and Sadeghi, 2014). They are expected to shift from a primary focus on
administration to also include instructional leadership.
As in most Asian countries (e.g. Oman, Turkey, India, United Arab Emirates, and Malaysia),
the roles and responsibilities of school leaders are defined by policymakers in line with the
country’s political, socioeconomic, cultural, and educational contexts. School principals are tasked
with a daunting number of responsibilities. They manage budgets, facilities, bus schedules, and
related institutional procedures. However, they have seldom assumed responsibility for leading
learning. Thus, they often feel ill-prepared to carry out their role as instructional leaders (Al-
Mahdy et al., 2018; Kalman and Arslan, 2016; UNESCO, 2016).
Nevertheless, policy reforms undertaken since 2000 have encouraged Iranian principals to
embrace an expanded role that encompasses leadership and management responsibilities as well.
For example, principals are now encouraged to share decision-making with school councils,
teacher councils, and parent teacher associations (UNESCO, 2016). At least some of the tensions
observed in the efforts of Iranian school leaders to adapt to these changes in their role set can be
traced to the cultural–political context of Iranian society (Aliakbari and Sadeghi, 2014; Mehrali-
zadeh et al., 2006).

Conceptual model
The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) conceptual framework used in this
study proposes three dimensions to the principal’s instructional leadership role (Hallinger and
Wang, 2015). These comprise of Defines the School Mission, Manages the Instructional Program
and Develops a Positive School Learning Climate (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). The first dimen-
sion, Defines the School Mission, focuses on the principal’s role in working with staff to ensure that
the school has clear, measurable goals focused on the academic progress of students. It is also the
principal’s responsibility to communicate these goals so they are widely known and supported
throughout the school community. Principals can, for example, promote teacher efficacy through
articulating an inspiring vision of learning for the school, setting challenging but attainable goals,
clarifying the standards of teacher and pupil performances, fostering teacher learning and devel-
opment, and coaching teachers to attain success (Leithwood et al., 2008).
The second dimension, Manages the Instructional Program, focuses on the coordination and
control of instruction and curriculum (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). These leadership functions
focus on the role played by school leaders in organizing high-quality learning, developing the
quality of teaching and learning, monitoring student progress, and making adjustments to foster
success. The emphasis within this instructional leadership function lies in the use of feedback as a
means of developing the instructional capacity of teachers. Thus, the principal, as well as middle-
level leaders, must assume responsibility for giving effective feedback (Hallinger and Wang, 2015;
Ng et al., 2015).
The last dimension, Develops a Positive School Learning Climate, includes several functions:
protects instructional time, promotes professional development, maintains high visibility, provides
incentives for teachers, develops high expectations and standards, and provides incentives for
learning. The principal must model values and practices that create a climate which supports the
continuous improvement of teaching and learning (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Method
This study employed a sequential explanatory, mixed methods research design (Creswell, 2014). In
this strategy, the quantitative phase was used to describe instructional leadership practices and
classify principals into two types (high- and low-rated leaders). In the subsequent qualitative phase,
interviews were conducted to gain insights into the instructional leadership practices of the prin-
cipals from the perspectives of the principals and teachers (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). A contrasting
group design that contrasted higher and lower rated principals was employed in order to both
validate differences in perceptions surfaced through the survey and describe them in terms of
actual on-the-ground practices.

Sample
Quantitative phase
The study was conducted in 70 state primary schools out of a total of 398 primary schools in the
city of Mashhad. Mashhad’s primary schools are distributed in seven districts which represent a
range of socioeconomic status. The sampling procedures were executed by using the two-stage
cluster sampling design (Cochran, 1977) in order to ensure that the researchers obtained a repre-
sentative sample of primary schools from all seven districts. The questionnaires were submitted to
all teachers and principals in each school. We obtained 535 valid questionnaires from teachers and
70 valid questionnaires from principals. The response rate was 100% for principals and 76.4% for
teachers. All of the schools included in this study had a maximum response rate of 16 teachers and
a minimum response rate of four teachers per school.
It is worth mentioning that the schools in Iran are single-gender institutions. In this study, 50%
of the primary schools were single-sex schools serving boys and 50% serving girls. Since female
teachers can teach in the boys’ schools as well, about 84.3% of the included teachers were female
and 15.7% of the teachers were male. This is typical of the teacher population across primary
schools in Iran.
In addition, in Iran, teachers are ranked in terms of one of four levels (basic, senior, expert,
excellent) based on their level of professional development. In this study, about 54% of the
teachers were at the excellent level, 24% were at the expert level, 11.8% were at the senior level,
and 3.2% were at the basic level. The average number of years of teaching experience was 22.76,
and the average number of years working with their principals was 2.44.
In terms of principal gender, 51.4% of the primary school principals were male and 48.6%
female. The average number of years of experience in the principalship was 10.66, and the average
number of years working in the current school was 4.16.

Qualitative phase
Consistent with a sequential explanatory design, the identification of the qualitative sample took
place following preliminary analysis of the quantitative data. The qualitative phase of the study
was aimed at examining how the principals in different schools carried out their instructional
leadership role. Thus, our research strategy sought to identify contrasting groups of schools in
order to highlight differences among the principals in their approaches to enhancing teaching and
learning.
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 5

As noted above, in the first phase, surveys were administered in the schools. Following analysis
of the surveys, the results were used to identify subjects for the qualitative analysis. Here we
ranked the schools according to mean scores obtained from the principals and teachers on the
principals’ instructional leadership. Then we identified two schools each where teachers and
principals were in close agreement concerning the high/low scores accorded to the principal on
instructional leadership. This yielded a total of four principals: two that we refer to subsequently as
high rated and two as low rated on the construct of instructional leadership.

Data collection
The PIMRS administered in the quantitative phase measured the instructional leadership practices
of principals from the perspectives of the principals and their teachers. The PIMRS uses a five-
point Likert scale to assess the frequency of instructional leadership behaviors performed by the
principals. The analyses reported in this paper drew upon data obtained from the 22-item PIMRS
Teacher Short Form and the 50-item Principal Form (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
As noted above, the aim of the qualitative data collection was to describe and interpret the
nature of the instructional leadership practices performed by the selected Iranian primary school
principals. An interview protocol previously developed to study instructional leadership in East
Asia (Hallinger, 2017) was employed to gather data on the instructional leadership of the princi-
pals. This interview protocol was built around a broad framework that sought to understand the
principal’s instructional leadership practices within the context of the school (Bossert et al., 1982).
Therefore, although the questions in the protocol overlapped with the PIMRS framework, we did
not wish to presuppose the actual nature of the practices performed by the principals.
With this in mind, the protocol used open-ended questions that made as few assumptions as
possible about the instructional leadership practices of the principals. Questions sought to understand
how the principals interacted with their teachers, students, and the community to achieve the schools’
goals. The questions also aimed at understanding the principals’ approaches to leading the teachers
and fostering the learning of teachers and students. The protocol is included as Appendix A.
One of the researchers conducted all of the interviews at the selected schools. Three in-depth
individual interviews, lasting on average one hour each, were conducted at each of the four
schools. In each school, the researcher interviewed the principal and two experienced teachers.
Teachers were selected in each school based on their years of experience working with the current
principal. Thus, the qualitative data consisted of interviews with four principals and eight teachers.

Data analysis
This paper reports data taken from a larger study. For the purposes of this paper, we limit our report
on the quantitative results to the information needed to establish the sample for the qualitative
research. This means that we present the basic statistical information on the PIMRS and the scores
of the principals on the three PIMRS dimensions.
Data analysis began with establishing the reliability and construct validity of the measurement
model. As shown in Table 1, Cronbach’s alpha test was employed to measure the internal con-
sistency of the scales. Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the standard of .60 used for research instruments
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). In the second step, confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the
average variance extracted (>0.50) for the PIMRS dimensions met required measurement stan-
dards (Hair et al., 2014).
6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 1. Descriptive and comparative statistics for teacher and principal data.

Teacher data Principal data

Variables Mean (M) SD a Factor loading Average Mean (M) SD Factor loading Average

Instructional 4.23 .61 .941 – .502 4.52 .25 – .503

leadershipa
Defines mission 4.38 .59 .804 .68 4.61 .3 .64
Manages 4.22 .64 .850 .69 4.41 .37 .71
instruction
Develops climate 4.16 .67 .877 .73 4.54 .25 .58
a
Five-point Likert scale; teachers n ¼ 535, principals n ¼ 70.

We also analyzed descriptive statistics in order to gain insight into the perceived level of the
variables in the sample of schools. These data were then used to identify two high-rated and two
low-rated principals on the PIMRS instrument.
Qualitative data analysis proceeded with the development of initial descriptions of key practices
of each of the four principals. This entailed comparing the principal and teacher perceptions to see
where there appeared to be agreement or disagreement among the interviewees. It should be noted
that the conceptual categories were allowed to emerge from the data. Thus, the headings used to
organize the data in the cross-case analyses do not conform to the PIMRS framework.
In this phase potentially distinctive practices were also highlighted (Patton, 2002). This resulted
in four principals’ descriptions that identified instructional leadership on which there were high
levels of agreement between the principal and the teachers. Once the four school descriptions were
completed, the principals were divided based on their performance levels, and practices were
compared in order to determine if there were domains that distinguished the pairs of principals.

Results
The results are presented in two parts. First, we present the descriptive analysis of the quantitative
data in order to rate the instructional leadership performance of the school principals. Second,
qualitative data analysis is used to describe and interpret the nature of the instructional leadership
practices performed by the higher and lower rated principals.

Quantitative analysis
The task in preparing the analyses reported in this paper involved identifying two high-rated and
two low-rated principals based on the ratings of the principals’ instructional leadership. This
involved generating descriptive statistics using the principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of the
principal instructional leadership. Mean, minimum/maximum, and SDs for the 70 schools were
then put into an Excel table which included the total instructional leadership and dimension score
data for the 70 principals. The principals were then ranked on the mean teachers’ perceptions of the
total instructional leadership (i.e. full scale score) and the principals’ self-perception mean (i.e. full
scale score). High-ranked and low-ranked principals were identified using the full scale and
dimension scores as rated by teachers. It is worth noting that the principals’ self-perception ratings
were only used as the secondary confirming data (see Table 2).
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 7

Table 2. Comparison of teacher perceptions of the case study and full sample of principals.

Mean SD Min. Max.

School A
Instructional leadership 4.9 .1 4 5
Defines school mission 4.9 .1 4 5
Manages instruction 4.9 .13 4.67 5
Develops learning climate 4.8 .13 4.7 5
School B
Instructional leadership 4.81 .13 4.64 5
Defines school mission 4.85 .19 4.6 5
Manages instruction 4.73 .19 4.57 5
Develops learning climate 4.85 .16 4.6 5
School C
Instructional leadership 3.39 .92 1.4 4.7
Defines school mission 3.48 .75 2 4.8
Manages instruction 3.4 .95 1.6 4.7
Develops learning climate 3.35 1 1.2 4.7
School D
Instructional leadership 3.17 .73 2.3 4.3
Defines school mission 3.36 1 2.2 5
Manages instruction 3.2 .72 2.5 4.3
Develops learning climate 3 .85 1.78 4
All schools
Instructional leadership 4.23 .61 1.4 5
Defines school mission 4.38 .59 1.8 5.4
Manages instruction 4.22 .64 1.6 5
Develops learning climate 4.1 .67 1.2 5

The absolute scores of the high- and low-ranked principals were all in the high range of the
PIMRS scale. This led the researchers to wonder if the highest and lowest ranked principals were
indeed different, or not. Independent sample t-tests did, however, confirm that the principals’ mean
scores in Schools A and B were significantly higher on all dimensions of the instructional lead-
ership than the mean for the full group of 70 principals who participated in the larger study (p < .1).
Similarly, t-tests confirmed that Principals C and D scores were significantly lower than the full
sample of principals.
These results indicated “weaker leadership” from the principals in Schools C and D when
compared with Schools A and B. The four schools chosen for this study are located within four
districts that reflect different socioeconomic status (e.g. high, middle, and low levels). The schools
were quite similar in terms of size, experience level of the principals, and other demographic
factors. The only noticeable difference between the two schools was the socioeconomic status of
the students. Their characteristics are shown in Table 3.

Qualitative analysis
Given questions raised by the relatively small absolute differences in the mean PIMRS scores of
the two groups of principals, the researchers approached the qualitative analyses with caution. That
is, we did not assume that the qualitative analysis would necessarily show substantial differences in
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 3. Characteristics of cross-study cases.

Schools Context

High-performing School A: boys’ school, male principal, 12 teachers, K–6 school, 420 students, middle
principals socioeconomic status.
School B: girls’ school, female principal, 9 teachers, K–3 school, 315 students, high
socioeconomic status.
Low-performing School C: girls’ school, female principal, 14 teachers, K–6 school, 455 students,
principals middle socioeconomic status.
School D: girls’ school, female principal, 10 teachers, K–3 school, 352 students,
middle socioeconomic status.

instructional leadership practices, but rather kept an open mind about the possible results. None-
theless, the cross-case analysis did surface differences in the instructional leadership practices of
the higher and lower rated principals (see Table 4).

Autocratic leadership versus collaborative leadership styles

The cross-case findings highlighted the principals’ accountability for all things that happened in
their schools. In all four cases, principals broadly explained their “responsibility” to use their
position power to control what people did, as well as when and how they did it. Indeed, according
to school regulations in Iran (2000), the school principal is responsible and accountable for school
performance. The principals are expected to implement the policies and directives promulgated by
the Ministry of Education. In all four cases, acceptance of the principal’s absolute authority and
legitimate role of the principals in directing the school was confirmed in interviews with teachers
and principals.
However, when analyzing findings on the lower rated principals (Principals C and D), a
recurring theme emerged concerning the frequency with which principals were described as
employing an autocratic leadership style. Teachers emphasized the principals’ use of “power over”
others or the use of position power with the goal of attaining obedience, compliance, and control.
For example, teachers in School D described their principal as highly rule-dependent, bureaucratic,
inflexible, strict, and authority-centered. One teacher, for instance, asserted: “the principal of the
school is lawful and strict. She is boss . . . all teachers are expected to totally perform according to
the dictated rules” (Teacher 1, School D). Principal C affirmed that all directions and circulars are
very important, and require timely and full compliance by all staff.
The highly rated instructional leaders were described by their teachers as strong, flexible,
inspirational, encouraging, supportive, collaborative, and, at the same time, concerned about
improving the quality of education. These principals complemented the use of position power
with the use of interpersonal influence. They emphasized not only the need to follow directives but
also to involve teachers in collective decision-making. Thus, for example, one teacher in School B
noted that “cooperation is one of the main characteristics of the principal” (Teacher 1, School B).
To sum up, the cross-case findings surfaced differences between the sets of principals in the
extent to which they complemented the use of an autocratic leadership style with a collegial,
collaborative style. While both groups of principals did use position power and accepted the use
of authority as a fundamental part of their role, the highly rated instructional leaders complemented
this approach with efforts to involve staff in meaningful decision-making. These “relational”
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 9

Table 4. Comparison of high-performing principals and low-performing principals on instructional leadership

practices.

High-performing principals Low-performing principals

Leadership style Collaborative Autocratic

Responsible for teachers and students Responsible for laws and rules
People-centered leadership Relying on positional power and authority to
Flexible, inspirational, supportive, and influence teachers
collegial Rule and law-dependent, bureaucratic and
Involving teachers in collective inflexible
decision-making Command-and-control leadership
Team-working Division of labor among school staff
Building a learning Using Tadbir for goal-setting Lack of a clear vision
vision Clear communication of vision and Taking care to document all diary activities
goal Emphasizing the ethical dimension of teachers’
Emphasizing moral purpose of behavior
teachers and their responsibility for
students
Managing the Self-motivated and committed Self-motivated and less committed teachers
instructional teachers Disappointed teachers
program Supporting teacher teaching and No specific plan for supporting teachers
learning Inadequate attention to instructional issues
Responsible for students’ learning Spending more time responding to directives and
results overseeing affairs
Strong classroom management skills Overcoming the managerial and political role of
Coordinating the curriculum with a principal during their instructional leadership
teachers responsibilities
Reducing bureaucracy and Complaining about the shortcomings of principal
decentralizing decision-making in supporting teachers
Extending smart educational Gap between school and home because of
technologies parental low socioeconomic status
Being aware of teachers’ classroom Emphasizing the ethical dimension of students’
performance upbringing
Close communication between school
and home
Supporting low-achieving students
Using reward systems to motivate
students
Providing learning Mutual respect and trust between Lack of respect and trust in relationship between
support principal and teachers principal and teachers
Good interpersonal relationships Abuse of teachers from principal leadership style
A positive school atmosphere and Principal’s laissez-faire approach
support from teacher learning Individual work, no team work
Trying to meet teachers’ educational Teachers changing the curriculum by
concerns and needs coordinating with their principal
Feeling of social justice among Paying attention to high-achieving students
teachers Financial help to poor students
Providing informal learning
opportunities
Running effective school council
meetings
(continued)
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 4. (continued)

High-performing principals Low-performing principals

Similarities Self-motivated teachers

School management hierarchy structure
Lack of rational standards for appraising performance of teachers
Lack of an effective teacher feedback system for improving teachers’ performance
Low quality of in-service teacher training

differences carried over into the actual instructional leadership practices described by the teachers
and principals.

Defines the school mission

This dimension of the instructional leadership model concerns the principal’s role in working with
staff to ensure that the school has a clear mission and that the mission is focused on the academic
progress of its students. While this dimension does not assume that the principal alone defines the
school’s mission, it does propose that the principal is responsible for ensuring that such a mission
exists and for communicating it widely to staff (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
The cross-case findings highlighted the fact that the formal goals of the school tend to be centrally
determined at the ministry level. As mentioned, the goals and all requirements for improving student
outcomes have been outlined in the Tadbir program. All school principals needed to develop and
submit an annual action plan. These action plans were expected to define all teaching and learning
plans and activities. This provided a basis for focusing school resources on improving the quality of
teaching, guiding teacher activities, and evaluating school effectiveness.
The highly ranked principals made frequent references to Tadbir as a framework for their efforts
to improve teaching and learning in their schools. Principal A, for example, explained that Tadbir
aimed to document all programs and activities of the school in full detail. Moreover, Principal B
pointed out, “This program is an annual operational program aimed at promoting the school’s
effectiveness.” In contrast, the lower rated principals, in following Tadbir, focused more on
management of the school’s physical equipment and facilities. Thus, progress in academic pro-
gram development was more limited.
The higher rated instructional leaders articulated the requirements outlined in Tadbir and
motivated everybody towards that vision by reviewing performance regularly. In contrast, the
lower ranked instructional leaders approached this program and its related actions as a routine
administrative process to be completed.

Manages the instructional program

The second dimension, Manages the Instructional Program, focuses on the coordination and
control of instruction and curriculum. It requires the principal and other leaders to be engaged
in enhancing, supervising, and monitoring teaching and learning at the school (Hallinger and
Wang, 2015). The role of monitoring and evaluating teachers is part of the job of principals in
Iran. According to Tadbir, teachers have to be formally evaluated by the principal several times in
a school year.
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 11

More broadly, principals are expected to be involved with instruction and with programs.
Principals in the sample were most active in the formal activities of coordinating curriculum and
instruction in the Teachers’ Council. However, they tended to be less active in supervising/eval-
uating instruction and monitoring student progress. For instance, one of the teachers pointed out:
“Our school principal is always aware of the process of our classroom performance” (Teacher 2,
School B).
It should be noted that most principals in Iran have a vice principal to assist in instructional
affairs. Moreover, district-level curriculum leaders are responsible for curriculum matters and
monitoring students’ progress. Therefore, principals tend not to be involved in coordinating the
curriculum or monitoring student progress but rather seek regular feedback on issues as needed.
For instance, Principal B noted that, “To help students with learning disabilities, teachers are
consulted at meetings of the Teachers’ Council on these issues. The instructional Vice Principal
focuses on organizing students in different classes. Classes are visited monthly.”
In contrast, in School C, teacher activities are often documented, evaluated, and reported to the
central office, but more through the use of checklists. For example, as a teacher noted,
“permissions are checked and classes are visited but sometimes evaluations are suddenly done
at the moment that they are required for submission.” She further acknowledged that there were no
rational standards for appraising the performances of teachers, and teachers’ performance appraisal
“was not aimed to improve the teachers and students’ learning” (Teacher 1, School C).
In School D, the principal claimed that she spent most of her time in school responding to
directives and overseeing affairs. Nonetheless, she displayed a sense of pride in her efforts to
implement the directives. This revealed her passion and determination for making them work in the
context of her school.
The higher rated instructional leaders also tended to encourage and reward students on their
academic efforts. One teacher described, “The principal encourages students by giving them a
prize. She ranks the students and encourages them at different competitions at the school level”
(Teacher 1, School A). Another teacher explained, “I try to empower students to improve their
learning through entering a constructive competition to make students feel more confident. In this
regard, parental feedback was positive” (Teacher 2, School A).
One teacher stated, “The principal follows the student’s academic progress to improve the
quality of students’ learning by communicating with parents.” (Teacher 2, School A). Furthermore,
the highly rated principals aimed to support the learning of all students including low-achievers.
Principal B explained:

We identify low-achieving students and design extracurricular activities for them regarding their
ability levels and choose appropriate teachers to teach them. We talk to their parents and give some
advice to them to follow up, and introduce high-achieving students to special educational centers.
(Principal B)

Parents in these schools are more stable financially and able to provide financial assistance to
school. The parents appeared interested in their children’s achievements, and had a visible pres-
ence in the schools. In contrast, parents in the lower rated principals’ schools tended to be illiterate
and poor. The principals in these schools complained about the students’ families’ low educational
culture. The parents often failed to attend meetings and did not monitor their children’s progress.
Thus, differences in the socioeconomic backgrounds of the families could also play a role in the
amount of time the principals devoted to managing the instructional program.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Develops a positive school learning climate

As mentioned, improving the quality of teaching and learning is the most important purpose of the
Tadbir program. However, the principals’ leadership styles in all selected schools made the quality
of implementation different.
Our case studies of highly rated principals revealed that they created a positive learning atmo-
sphere. The principals focused on reducing bureaucracy and decentralizing decision-making. They
described their efforts to involve teachers in collective decision-making and to consult with them
on important issues. Despite the bureaucratic routines, the principals emphasized the need for
having a relaxed environment and favorable conditions which teachers considered both safe and
valuable for engaging in experimentation, reflection, and risk-taking. This point is the important
feature in the practice of the highly rated instructional leaders. For example, Principal A claimed
that he made a conscious effort to be friendly and approachable. Principal A tried to create an
intimate atmosphere which aimed at increasing the job satisfaction of the teachers. Therefore, the
teachers at School A were appreciative of his efforts for developing a positive learning environ-
ment. One of the teachers pointed out, “He pays less attention to formal programs and tries to work
with the students according to their own abilities and talents” (Teacher 2, School A).
Moreover, regarding the instructional time, Principal A encouraged teachers to improve the
quality of teaching by using smart educational technologies, such as e-books, applied experiments,
and illustrative stories. As one teacher stated: "He supported the teachers with making the class-
rooms smart, and providing the students with their educational needs and field trips" (Teacher 2,
School A). According to the teachers, Principal A was very close to his teachers and showed great
enthusiasm, energy, and commitment when participating in the meetings with his teachers. In
addition, Principal A claimed that he made a conscious effort to be friendly and approachable; he
believes that “I have never sat behind a desk all day and used power over others, but I preferred to
sit near my teachers.” School A’s teachers confirmed the principal’s belief and support by com-
menting that “the principal has never sat and ordered. He has good relationships with teachers”
(Teacher 1, School A).
As described by the teachers, Principal B respected her staff, and she was trying her best to meet
their educational concerns. They considered collaboration as one of her best attributes. Thus, the
most important criteria were the feelings of cooperation and justice among the teachers. According
to Principal A, “I always try to keep in touch with colleagues even through virtual social
networks.” As one of the teachers stated:

“We are working as a good team in this school. All comments are absolutely important for the
principal . . . .Through the critical mood of the principal, many problems can be solved and teachers
work together to solve the problems.” (Teacher 1, School A)

Interviews with teachers indicated that the principals also sought to create opportunities for
teachers to share knowledge in ongoing meetings. For example, Principal B was essentially
responsible for running the weekly meetings. She conducted several meetings to strengthen the
school learning climate and share the views of the teachers.
Principal A also encouraged the teachers to attend in-service training courses. However, most of
the teachers often complained about the poor quality of in-service teacher education. Interviews with
the principals and the teachers indicated that these formal training courses were not effective and
practical. For example, one teacher explained that “in-service training courses are not effective and
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 13

the content of them is not useful for teachers and students” (Teacher 1, School A). Another teacher
claimed that “in-service training is useless and its courses do not prepare me for the classroom”
(Teacher 2, School A). Moreover, a teacher in School C stated that “in-service training is inadequa-
te . . . it does not meet our expectations and needs, and I do not learn much” (Teacher 1, School C). It
should be noted that there were many informal learning opportunities in educational reform initia-
tives which were communicated to schools, including lesson study, peer observation, and discussions
on instructional issues in the teachers’ council meetings. However, they were welcomed by some
teachers. No doubt it depends on the principals’ efforts to create learning opportunities.
The two highly rated principals tried to create conditions that supported teachers’ learning. For
example, Principal A tried to have friendly interpersonal relationships with the teachers and
provide them with spiritual and financial support. The teachers in this school had professional
autonomy to take initiatives. A teacher in School B explained that her principal was trying to
provide the necessary educational facilities for all teachers (Teacher 2, School B).
However, according to Principal C, “Teachers aren’t allowed to change the curriculum without
previous coordination with the principal.” Principal C’s style was laissez-faire and Principal D
used managerial control. However, teachers at both schools were self-motivated and emphasized
the concept of “love” in relation to teaching. “I love my work.” But it seemed that the teachers who
were working with the lower rated principals were less committed to make extra effort to apply the
curriculum successfully. They often complained about the lack of educational and financial
resources and unsuitable physical conditions of the schools, which had a negative effect on the
quality of teaching.
Overall, the teachers in the lower rated schools focused on the shortcomings of their principal
concerning support for teachers. For example, one of the teachers noted that “the principal doesn’t have
specific programs for supporting teachers and just encourages them to participate in competitions”
(Teacher 1, School C). In replying to the question “what is the principal doing to improve teachers’
learning?”, another teacher answered “nothing” (Teacher 2, School C). In her words, the principal just
organized meetings to solve the students’ problems and got help from the counselors.
To sum up, the principals believed that most of their time was spent on administrative and
executive affairs, and they did not have enough time to address instructional issues. However,
visibility was extremely important to all of the participant principals. They tried to be visible and
accessible during the day. As noted earlier, Iran’s education system has traditionally emphasized
the managerial and political dimensions of the principals’ roles. Within this bureaucratic education
system, the principals have relatively little autonomy. In addition, within this system, teachers
most often discuss highly structured and formal professional development activities. As men-
tioned, teachers have to attend all the compulsory training courses and workshops organized by
the ministry. Nevertheless, what distinguished high-rated principals from low-rated ones was good
cooperation with teachers facilitated through building good communication and trust. By trusting,
creating, and maintaining an organizational climate of safety and order, the principals hope that the
teachers will be able to improve their teaching performance and improve the students’ learning
outcomes. Thus, it seems that the principals in Iranian elementary schools have some tensions
between collectivism and collegiality versus compliance and control.

Discussion
This study sought to describe the nature of instructional leadership practices performed by con-
trasting pairs of principals. The study was an effort to contribute to the diversification of the global
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

knowledge base on instructional leadership (e.g. Hairon and Dimmock, 2012; Ng et al., 2015; Pan
et al., 2017; Qian and Walker, 2013). In this section, limitations of the study, interpretation of the
findings, and implications of the study will be presented.

Limitations of the study

The main limitations of this study concern the small sample size and validity of the ratings of the
principals. The sample comprised of high-rated and low-rated principals as instructional leader-
ship. This characterization was based only on assessment of the principals’ instructional leadership
and did not extend to their full job performance. In addition, despite statistically significant
differences in the PIMRS ratings of the high- and low-ranked principals, their absolute scores
were all at the high end of the scale. Thus, despite the qualitative results supporting the finding of
differences in the two groups, our findings should be interpreted as tentative descriptions of the
principals’ practices in primary schools in Iran.

Interpretation of the findings

This study aimed to sketch an initial picture of the instructional leadership practices in the context
of Iranian primary schools. According to the PIMRS results (Table 1), the principals rated them-
selves slightly higher than their teachers did; most scores were between 4.23 and 4.52 on the
PIMRS. The results of this study, as the second to investigate the PIMRS model of instructional
leadership, are consistent with those of the first study in Iran (Hallinger, 2017).
The cross-case findings showed the differences between the sets of the principals concerning
the extent to which the principals used a collegial or collaborative leadership style in concert with
their instructional leadership. Higher rated principals strove to ensure a collegial and collaborative
environment for teachers as an important aspect of their instructional leadership. This finding is
consistent with other research that supports the view that collaborative leadership positively
impacts and improves the quality of teaching and learning in schools. For example, Li, Hallinger
and Ko (2010) reported that collaborative leadership positively impacted growth in student learn-
ing indirectly through building the academic capacity in schools. Blasé and Blasé (2000) also
concluded that effective instructional leadership was embedded in a school culture of collegiality
among educators.
The higher ranked principals in the sample were also differentiated from their lower ranked
peers concerning the specific instructional leadership practices. Consistent with Bellibas’s (2014)
findings, it was found that successful principals did become involved in various instructional
leadership practices, yet most of these activities were not coherently linked to one another to bring
about instructional changes. For example, both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the
teachers indicated that the highly ranked principals defined and communicated a shared vision of
learning. This was reflected in their approach to engage teachers in the Tadbir program in which
Iranian principals develop action plans centered on teaching and learning activities. Thus, the
principals were expected to integrate collaboration, peer coaching, inquiry, collegial study groups,
and reflective discussion into a holistic approach to promote professional dialogue among educa-
tors (see Blasé and Blasé, 2000).
In addition, the high-ranked principals appeared to give more emphasis to their roles in devel-
oping the quality of teaching and learning and monitoring the students’ progress. They emphasized
the need for a relaxed environment and favorable conditions which were both safe and valuable to
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 15

the teachers. Thus, they expected the teachers to have strong classroom management skills and
encouraged them to improve the quality of learning to use smart educational technologies. There-
fore, the more successful principals sought to create a supportive environment to facilitate learning
by all staff. Consistent with Noman et al. (2018), strong interpersonal skills, people-centered
leadership, clear communication of vision and goal, and creating a positive work environment are
all vital constituents of successful leadership in school. As reported by Lindahl (2010), teachers in
high-rated schools viewed their principals’ behavior more positively than did their counterparts in
the lower rated schools. Thus, it seems a positive school environment leads to teachers’ higher self-
efficacy, collective efficacy, and job satisfaction, which are instrumental to improving teaching
and learning (Leithwood et al., 2008). Nevertheless, leading teachers to construct a learning-
focused classroom that engages students is still a challenge for many Iranian principals.
Further, the two sets of principals were also distinguished by their approaches to managing
bureaucratic processes in their schools. Consistent with other Asian societies (e.g. Thailand, Oman,
Turkey), these Iranian principals were expected to perform within control systems that reflect core
features of managerialism (Heystek, 2007). Therefore, they often felt ill-prepared to carry out their
roles as instructional leaders (Al-Mahdy et al., 2018; Hallinger and Lee, 2014; Kalman and Arslan,
2016). However, policymakers envisioned the role of the principal as critical to the successful
implementation of reforms related to the curriculum, instruction, and education quality (Hallinger
and Lee, 2014). Nevertheless, the highly rated instructional leaders considered reducing bureau-
cracy and decentralizing decision-making as a means of engaging teachers in the school in more
meaningful ways. This was related to stronger tendencies to share their leadership and build trust
with teachers. It was also evidenced that within the constraints of a highly centralized hierarchical
structure, the instructional leaders used both top-down and bottom-up approaches towards program
implementation.

Implications of the study

The findings should help the principals in Iran and other societies where instructional leadership
has not been emphasized to reflect on their potential to enhance school improvements. Certainly, it
requires a paradigm shift from the traditional role of the school principal as an administrator to a
leader. It is suggested that leadership development programs should address the goal of strength-
ening belief among principals so that they can make a difference to their teachers’ learning (Liu
and Hallinger, 2018). However, in strongly hierarchical societies such as Iran, significant changes
in the role set of school principals would be unlikely without explicit support at the system level
(see Al-Mahdy et al., 2018). Therefore, leadership development must take place within a broader
set of systemic changes which also redefine the roles and responsibilities of the school principals.
In the bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of education in Iran, the school principals have the
capacity to infuse broad statements of mission that filter down from the Ministry of Education with
the purpose of motivating teachers to learn together. Therefore, the creation of a collaborative
culture and the development of common learning should be encouraged in schools; they increase
the chance of teacher leadership improvement in such a collaborative setting.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.

ORCID iD
Philip Hallinger https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5935-7544
Rezvan Hosseingholizadeh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7497-9560

References
Aliakbari M and Sadeghi A (2014) Iranian teachers’ perceptions of teacher leadership practices in schools.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership 42(4): 576–592.
Al-Mahdy YFH, Emam MM and Hallinger P (2018) Assessing the contribution of principal instructional
leadership and collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment in Oman. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation 69(1):191–201
Arani AM, Kakia ML and Karimi MV (2012) Assessment in education in Iran. SAeDUC Journal 9(2): no
page numbers.
Bellibas MS (2014) A Mixed-Method Approach to the Exploration of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in
Lower Secondary Schools in Turkey: The Principal and Teacher Perspectives. Doctoral disseration,
Michigan State University, MI.
Blasé J and Blasé J (2000) Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals
promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2): 130–141.
Bossert S, Dwyer D, Rowan B and Lee G (1982) The instructional management role of the principal.
Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.
Boyce J and Bowers AJ (2018) Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership
for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational
Administration 56(2): 161–182.
Cochran WG (1977) Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Coelli M and Green DA (2012) Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of
Education Review 31(1): 92–109.
Creswell J (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Day C, Gu Q and Sammons P (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school
leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration
Quarterly 52(2): 221–258.
Edmonds R (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1): 15–24.
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM and Sarstedt M (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hairon S and Dimmock C (2012) Singapore schools and professional learning communities: Teacher pro-
fessional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review 64(4):
405–424.
Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transforma-
tional leadership. Cambridge Journal of education 33(3): 329–352.
Hallinger P and Lee M (2014) Mapping instructional leadership in Thailand: Has education reform impacted
principal practice?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1): 6–29.
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 17

Hallinger P and Wang WC (2015) Assessing Instructional Leadership with the Principal Instructional Man-
agement Rating Scale. Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer.
Hallinger P, Hosseingholizadeh R, Hashemi N and Kouhsari M (2017) Do beliefs make a difference?
Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commit-
ment in Iran. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(5): 800–819.
Heystek J (2007) Reflecting on principals as managers of moulded leaders in a managerialistic school system.
South African Journal of Education 27(3): 491–506.
Hung DKM and Ponnusamy P (2010) Instructional leadership and schools’ effectiveness. In: Lytras MD,
Ordonez De Pablos P, Ziderman A, Roulstone A, Maurer H and Imber JB (eds) Knowledge Management
Information Systems E-Learning and Sustainability Research. WSKS 2010. Communications in Computer
and Information Science Vol. 111. Berlin: Springer, pp.401–406, 2.
Kalman M and Arslan MC (2016) School principals’ evaluations of their instructional leadership behaviours:
Realities vs. ideals. School Leadership and Management 36(5): 508–530.
Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42.
Lieberman A and Pointer-Mace DH (2008) Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of
Teacher Education 59(3): 226–234.
Lindahl RA (2010) Differences in principals’ leadership behavior in high- and low-rated schools. Journal of
Leadership Studies 3(4): 34–45.
Li L, Hallinger P and Ko J (2016) Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Educational Management 30(1): 76–100.
Liu S and Hallinger P (2018) Principal Instructional Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, and Teacher Profes-
sional Learning in China: Testing a Mediated-Effects Model. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(4):
501–528.
Mehralizadeh Y, Sepace H and Atashfeshan F (2006) Globalization and decentralization of management: A
study of the feasibility of application of school-based management in Iran’s secondary schools. Journal of
Educational Research 52(1): 84–98.
Mestry R, Moonsammy-Koopasammy I and Schmidt M (2013) The instructional leadership role of primary
school principals. Education as Change 17(sup1): S49–S64.
Ministry of Education Iran (2018) Available at: http://www.medu.ir/fa/ (accessed 31 February 2018).
Moghaddam A, Sarkar Arani MR and Kuno H (2015) A collaborative inquiry to promote pedagogical
knowledge of mathematics in practice. Issues in Educational Research 25(2): 170–186.
Murphy J (1988) Methodological, measurement and conceptual problems in the study of instructional lead-
ership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 10(2): 117–139.
National Study Center for TIMSS and PIRLS (2015) Available at: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/
encyclopedia/countries/iran-islamic-rep-of/ (accessed 11 March 2019).
Navidinia H, Reza Kiani G, Akbari R and Ghaffar Samar R (2015) EFL teacher performance evaluation in
Iranian high schools: Examining the effectiveness of the status quo and setting the groundwork for
developing an alternative model. The International Journal of Humanities 21(4): 27–53.
Ng D, Nguyen TD, Wong KSB and Choy KWW (2015) Instructional leadership practices in Singapore.
School Leadership and Management 35(4): 388–407.
Noman M, Awang Hashim R and Shaik Abdullah S (2018) Contextual leadership practices: The case of a
successful school principal in Malaysia. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 46(3):
474–490.
Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Paivandi S (2012) Education in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Perspectives on Democratic Reforms. Dubai:
Legatum Institute.
Pan HLW, Nyeu FY and Cheng SH (2017) Leading school for learning: Principal practices in Taiwan.
Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 168–185.
Pashiardis P and Johansson O (eds) (2016) Successful School Leadership: International Perspectives. Lon-
don: Bloomsbury Academic.
Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative interviewing. In: Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 339–427.
Qian H and Walker A (2013) How principals promote and understand teacher development under curriculum
reform in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41(3): 304–315.
Qian H, Walker A and Li X (2017) The West wind vs the East wind: Instructional leadership model in China.
Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 186–206.
Saberi L and Amiri F (2016) A qualitative study of Iranian EFL university teachers’ attitude towards
professional development. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 7(3): 591–598.
Sajjadi S (2015) Development discourses on the educational system of Iran: A critical analysis of their effects.
Policy Futures in Education 13(7): 819–834.
Salo P, Nylund J and Stjernstrøm E (2015) On the practice architectures of instructional leadership. Educa-
tional Management Administration and Leadership 43(4): 490–506.
UNESCO (2016) Leading Better Learning: School Leadership and Quality in the Education 2030 Agenda.
UNESCO planning paper, www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/Abstract-Leader
ship.pdf (accessed 11 March 2019).
Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Author biographies
Philip Hallinger is the Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation Chair, Professor of
Leadership in the Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership in the College of Management,
Mahidol University (Thailand) and Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Education,
University of Johannesburg (South Africa). His research interests include instructional leadership,
leadership effects, and international educational leadership.

Rezvan Hosseingholizadeh is the Associate Professor of Educational Administration and

Leadership in the College of Education and Psychology in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad,
Mashhad (Iran). Her research interests include educational administration and leadership, and
knowledge management.
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 19

Appendix A
ILEA interview protocol

Introduction
Hi, I am _____________ and I come from the ________________. I want to start by thanking you
for taking the time to meet with me today. This interview will take between 60 and 90 minutes.

Our interest is to understand how directors in _____________ and other countries in Southeast Asia
think about and exercise their role as directors. But we have a particular interest in your sharing
information about how you lead with respect to the development of teaching and learning in your
school. Therefore, many of the questions will concern that area of your work.

All of the information that you share with us today will be anonymous and kept confidential. Any
written reports from this research will be sure to hide the identity of you and your school.

Personal background (about 10 minutes)

1. Could we begin with you talking a bit about your training and experience as an educator.
Briefly, tell me about your background as an educator.

 Education and training programs (briefly)

 What is your teaching background (how many years, grade levels, school level etc.)?
 How long did you work as vice director or director?
 How long did you work as a director at other schools? This school?

2. Are there particular beliefs that you have which guide your work as a director and
teacher? What are they?

 Can you give some examples of these that influence your practices as a leader in your
school?
 If I came to visit you at work with your teachers, how would I see these beliefs in your
day-to-day practice as a leader?

Student outcomes (about 10 minutes)

3. As an educator and director, what do you want to achieve as a leader in your school?

 In your own mind, what are the most important indicators of your success as a leader in
your school?
 What would you want to be remembered for in terms of your contribution to the
school?
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

4. What are the most important goals and outcomes for your school?

 How is your school’s success measured by others (e.g. Ministry, parents, teachers,
community, students)?
 How do these expectations influence the way you work as a leader?

Institutional context (about 10 minutes)

5. Tell me some general information about your school. For example, grade levels, size,
number of teachers.

6. What are the strengths of your school?

 Staff
 Students
 Community

7. What are some of the weaknesses or challenges facing your school?

 Staff
 Students
 Community

8. Tell me a little about the relationship of your school to the Ministry of Education.

 To whom do you report in the Ministry? What does the Ministry expect of you as the
school’s director? How is your success measured or assessed?
 What are some of the ways in which your work as director is controlled by the Ministry?
 What are some of the ways in which your work as director is supported by the
Ministry?

Community (about 5 minutes)

9. Talk a bit about the community served by your school.

 What is the nature of the parents’ background?

 What do parents want from the school? Can you give me an example?
 What do they expect from you? Can you give me an example?
 How actively involved in the school are the parents in your community? Can you give
me an example?

10. How do you see your own role in relation to the community?

 What is your philosophy on involving parents in the school?

 How would I see that in your daily work?
 To what extent do you feel you are successful in working with your community? Why?
Hallinger and Hosseingholizadeh: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran 21

Leadership (about 15 minutes)

11. What is your leadership style?

 Can you give a couple of examples?

 How do you think your teachers would describe you?

12. Leadership for learning

 In general, what do you think the director’s responsibility is in terms of student

learning in the school? Should the director be accountable for the school’s learning
results? Why/why not?
 Think about a typical day at your school. What are the most important things that you
do which impact the quality of teaching in your school? Examples . . . .?
 What are the most important things that you do which impact the quality of student
learning in your school? Examples . . . .?

13. What is your role in relation to other leaders in the school?

 What areas of your leadership responsibility do you delegate to others? Examples?

 Which areas do you see as important for you to exercise yourself?

Learning climate (about 10 minutes)

14. How would you describe your school’s learning climate?

 What are some of the ways that you try to develop the learning climate in your school?
Can you give some examples?
 Are there rewards in your school for good performance for teachers?
 How often do teachers in your school receive in-service training? Can you give some examples?
 What is your own role in the development of your staff? (e.g. support, organization,
participation?)
 Are you very visible in your school, or do you tend to be very busy outside the school?
Tell me a little about how your time is spent during the day.

Instructional organization (about 10 minutes)

15. Do you have a school management team?

 Who is on it?
 What is its role and areas of responsibility?
 How do you manage the team?
 Do you feel it is effective? Why? Examples?
 Are there other management roles or structures in the school such as grade teams,
curriculum leaders etc.? Please describe them.
22 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

16. Tell me briefly about the curriculum used in your school.

 What role, if any, do you have in coordinating the curriculum across grade levels?

Wrap-up (about 5 minutes)

17. Do you have anything else that you feel is important to tell me about how you try to lead
in this school?