Instructional
Instructional leadership (Alanoglu, 2022) has been influential in repositioning teaching and learning at the centre of leadership agendas (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Robinson et al., 2008). By establishing clear pedagogical goals, managing curriculum implementation (Bush et al., 2019) and promoting high-quality instruction, it is especially effective in turnaround contexts (Leithwood et al., 2006) or where teaching quality is inconsistent Underscoring the importance of a shared vision, instructional leadership, and data-informed decision-making, while also addressing the challenges of balancing accountability with professional autonomy.
Critique evaluation
A key critique (Evans, 2022) is its limited scalability in large or multi-site institutions, where direct oversight of teaching by senior leaders is impractical (Bush, 2008; Spillane, 2006). The size and complexity of modern settings reduce the feasibility of close instructional supervision.
This limitation often results in the delegation of instructional responsibilities to middle leaders, which, if unsupported, can lead to inconsistencies in instructional focus and accountability (Leithwood et al., 2006). The scalability of instructional leadership is problematic in large or multi-campus institutions. The direct oversight of teaching by senior leaders becomes untenable, leading to reliance on middle leadership structures that may lack consistency or adequate training (Bush, 2008; Spillane, 2006). As a result, the integrity of instructional goals may become diluted or inconsistently enacted across departments.
Instructional leadership is often operationalised through technocratic frameworks that emphasise measurable outputs, such as performance data, lesson observations, and inspection (Day et al., 2000) readiness. When instructional leadership is reduced to checklist compliance, it risks marginalising the relational, affective, and ethical dimensions of teaching.
As Perryman (2009) suggests, such narrow accountability may result in “hyper-critical” cultures that stifle experimentation and risk-taking. The emotional and social dynamics of learning are frequently sidelined in instructional models that focus on attainment and curriculum delivery.
Shields (2010) argues that such models are poorly equipped to address the holistic needs of learners—especially those from vulnerable or marginalised backgrounds. In care-based settings, where emotional well-being and safeguarding are foundational, this deficit becomes particularly concerning.
Instructional leadership has the potential to elevate pedagogical standards, but it can reinforce hierarchical structures if not accompanied by opportunities for collaborative dialogue, peer feedback, and teacher agency. Gronn (2003) and Harris (2004) caution against centralised approaches that impose pedagogical standards without room for contextual adaptation.
In my organisation, instructional leadership has been strategically developed to improve teaching quality and learner outcomes (Naz and Rashid 2021) functioning in tandem with external governance bodies to ensure performance monitoring and accountability. A central initiative has been the implementation of structured peer observation cycles, where assessors and educators engage in reciprocal classroom visits followed by reflective dialogue.
These cycles, observed by external auditors, serve both accountability and developmental purposes, promoting a culture of empowerment and evidence-informed practice. As Ockerman and Bagui (2024) highlight, critical reflection sessions grounded in observation significantly enhance professional learning by deepening teachers’ awareness of their practice.
Week 4 discussion with Buss (2025) suggests that the most impactful professional development experiences are those framed by improvement strategies rather than solely identifying areas for development.
Instructional leadership, therefore, should not be abandoned but recalibrated to reflect a more holistic and relational approach. As Robinson et al. (2008) contend, its effectiveness hinges on its integration with distributive practices, relational trust, and ethical leadership. Despite criticisms, instructional leadership remains a valuable approach when adapted to context and integrated with more participatory models, such as distributed or transformational leadership.