This qualitative study examines how K–12 educational leaders describe and make sense of their leadership practices related to instructional support, evaluation and improvement strategies, collaborative relationships and trust, and parent and community engagement. Drawing on open-ended survey responses from practicing school and district leaders, the study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore leadership efficacy as enacted through daily practice rather than expressed solely as an abstract belief. Guided by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, and transformational leadership theory as interpretive lenses, leaders’ narratives are situated within the relational and contextual systems shaping leadership work. Findings reveal a coherent, practice-oriented leadership narrative grounded in collaboration, trust-building, reflective practice, and responsiveness to local context. Instructional leadership and evaluation were consistently framed as growth-oriented, relational processes, while collaborative relationships and trust emerged as foundational conditions enabling leadership practice across domains. Parent and community engagement was described as a reciprocal, boundary-spanning function rooted in communication, visibility, and partnership. Collectively, the findings position leadership efficacy as a relational and contextually embedded practice and highlight implications for leadership preparation and professional learning.
This mixed-methods study had two aims: to determine the purpose of school administrators’ use of social media and to develop and validate a scale measuring those purposes. In the qualitative phase, 15 school principals were interviewed individually, and the social media accounts of five principals were analyzed to identify purposes of use. In the second phase, an instrument was developed and validated across two independent samples of school administrators attending separate in-service training programs organized by the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MONE). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 156), using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation, revealed a three-factor structure: stakeholder communication, personal use, and professional development, accounting for 65.52% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 148) supported the factor structure with satisfactory model fit (χ²/df = 1.60, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .064). Convergent and discriminant validity were established through average variance extracted, composite reliability, McDonald’s omega, and the Fornell–Larcker criterion.
This study investigated assistant principals’ self-perceptions of their role as instructional leaders and examined the corresponding perceptions of principals. Grounded in Weber's (1996) instructional leadership model and using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), this quantitative study surveyed assistant principals and principals from a large suburban district. Findings reveal a gap: assistant principals rated themselves higher in instructional leadership than their principals. The results indicate that the assistant principal role requires a clearer definition, targeted professional development, and leadership succession planning. These findings offer implications for educational leadership training and school district practices.
Debates over the use of four-level scales in standards-based grading and reporting, particularly the meaning and necessity of the highest level, persist in K–12 education. This conceptual, practice-informed article examines whether “the 4,” commonly labeled advanced mastery, exceeds, or extending, is theoretically sound and instructionally useful within standards-aligned grading systems. Illustrative classroom scenarios demonstrate that students may produce exceptional work without exceeding the requirements of the standard being assessed. The article considers arguments for and against a top level that requires students to exceed the standard, and it distinguishes valuable qualities such as creativity, sophistication, and superior performance from evidence of standards attainment. Particular attention is given to the misapplication of Webb’s depth of knowledge framework as a proxy for mastery levels, clarifying the difference between cognitive complexity and quality of performance. The article recommends precise performance descriptors, moderation and calibration of student work, narrative feedback, student conferencing, and other approaches for recognizing excellence without distorting proficiency scales. It concludes that schools should initially use a three-level system focused on developing a shared understanding of proficiency. Additional levels may be considered later, following reflection, calibration, and analysis of implementation evidence.
This study investigated how school leadership teams drive equity-centered instructional practices in K–12 schools. It aimed to synthesize contemporary research to identify leadership behaviors, structures, and conditions that contribute to equitable student learning environments. This qualitative literature review examined 10 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2019 and 2025. Studies were selected based on their focus on instructional leadership, equity, and K–12 educational contexts. A thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns and strategies across the literature. Five major themes emerged: (1) inclusive leadership that fosters shared decision-making and relational trust; (2) equity-focused leadership pipelines that prepare leaders to identify and address systemic barriers; (3) equity-oriented data practices that contextualize academic metrics and inform instructional change; (4) culturally responsive instruction supported by school-wide professional learning; and (5) collaborative leadership that centers family and community engagement. These themes were reinforced across studies involving varied contexts and leadership roles. The review was limited to studies published in English and focused primarily on U.S. educational contexts. Districts and policymakers can use these findings to design leadership preparation programs, refine professional development strategies, and align accountability frameworks with equity goals.
