SEVEN STEPS TO EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP:

SET HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR YOUR STAFF

A Paper Presented to
Prof. Ma. Joji B. Tan, Med, MA
Professor of English
Division of Professional Education
College of Arts and Sciences
U.P. Visayas

Submitted by
Reyshimar C. Arguelles and
Clarissa Zorca
Masters of Education (English as a Second Language)
University of the Philippines Visayas

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EDL 261 –

Supervision of Bilingual Education
SEVEN STEPS TO EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP:
SET HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR YOUR STAFF

A Paper Presented to
Ms. Gerthrode Charlotte Tan-Mabilog, MEd ESL
Professor of English
Division of Professional Education
College of Arts and Sciences
U.P. Visayas

Submitted by
Reyshimar C. Arguelles and
Clarissa Zorca
Masters of Education (English as a Second Language)
University of the Philippines Visayas

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EDL 261 –

Supervision of Bilingual Education
INTRODUCTION

Managing an educational institution is a complex undertaking, one that the school head
can never handle alone. The volume tasks involved require high levels of productivity and
specialization. There are standards to be set that only an empowered teaching staff can
meet. Hence, there is a need for school heads to establish benchmarks for success so that
every effort and resource are properly dedicated to the institution’s overall success.
This paper provides a comprehensive summary of the fifth step of McEwan’s (2002)
book “The Seven Steps of Effective Instructional Leadership.”

I. HOW TO SET HIGH EXPECTATIONS

For McEwan, setting high expectations is a time-consuming and emotionally draining
process. While the aim is to enhance the instructional skills of teachers, factors such as
resistance to authority can impede the success of implementing this step. Heifetz (1994)
sees leadership as a process of learning that encourages school leaders to promote new
habits, effect change in teaching styles, apply and set best practices, and addressing
challenges.

(a) curriculum development is now of a planned systematic kind involving a

series of steps—the determination of general objectives, the writing of
materials, their try-out, their implementation through dissemination in the school
system, evaluation and quality control—all leading systematically to the further
revision of the curriculum.

(b) instructional procedures (teacher activities, student activities, classroom

management etc.) all appropriate for the implementation of the curriculum, are
developed to accompany the materials.

On the national scale, curriculum planning and development is governed by four major
functions:
 1. The need to define the specifications based on social and educational needs, a
body of theory, and relevant research;
2. The development of learning materials and instructional procedures that can
be further developed through try-outs by students and teachers under specific
conditions;
3. The evaluation of the effectiveness of learning materials using evidence-based
techniques that will also gauge how well the curriculum has accomplished the
objectives set; and
4. The provision of in-service and pre-service training to teachers handling the
changes in the curriculum.

Since a curriculum is viewed as a plan or program, it should be governed by an

underlying method that involves:

Approach: The theory of language and language learning

Design: The definition of linguistic content and a specification for the
selection and organization of content and description of the role of
teacher, learner and teaching materials
Procedure: The description of techniques and practices in the instructional
system

White (1989) cites a view of the curriculum in Sockett (1976) who uses the building of a
house as a metaphor. From this, three perspectives of curriculum development are
proposed.

1. A plan for a house yet to be constructed: In this sense, the curriculum is future
directed towards an objective. In this view, objectives define the content.

Objectives

Content

2. A plan of how to build a house: This view defines by which ends are to be achieved.
In this case, the curriculum also entails a construction system.
 Objectives

Content

Methods

3. A view of the house after it has been completed: This perspective adds evaluation
to process, thus suggesting a need to build on improving the current curriculum.

Objectives

Content Evaluation

Methods

White argues that the third perspective is more grounded on reality since
“curriculum development and curriculum proposals occur within existing systems.”
Skilbeck’s Situational Model for curriculum development, as we shall see later on, best
describes this.

Ideologies and Value Systems

Any language curriculum must have a sound ideological basis that defines what is
to be taught and how to teach it “since everything stems from the beliefs and values which
we bring to any aspect of our work as teachers.”
In laying down a specific approach to curriculum development, Skilbeck identified
three orientations that could serve as guides for laying down the objectives, content, and
methodology of curriculum planning:
Classical Humanism, as an expression of the grammar-translation
method, uses a center-periphery approach in which the dissemination of information
comes from one source. Hence, when there is a need to revise the curriculum, only
recognized authorities are able to implement changes by virtue of memoranda, decrees,
laws, and other political mechanisms. In this way, a classical humanist perspective
emphasizes a more centralized approach.
Reconstructionism, on the other hand, is reflect by the use of the audio-
lingual method. Using a rational approach banking on the work of B.F. Skinner and other
proponents of operant conditioning, a reconstructive approach to curriculum development
lays the ground work for incremental mastery. In this view, students are given enough time
and space to master a skill before they could proceed to the next stage of their learning.
While curriculum revisions also undergo a power-coercive process, such changes should
still be supported by empirical evidence.
Lastly, Progressivism as a problem-posing method frames the student as
the central agent of their own learning. While reconstructionism focuses on “doing things
to” the learner, progressivism involves “doing things for” and “doing things with” the
learner. Furthermore, a progressivist view of curriculum development involves adapting to
the real world needs of learners and that of their immediate communities.
These value systems are crucial aspects of curriculum development as they are a
pre-requisite for designing and crafting the procedures ELT curricula.

ELT Curriculum Design and Procedures: A Review of Two Approaches

Modern ELT has banked on two ideologies for curriculum development:
reconstructionism and progressivism. These have often served as the bases for curriculum
development frameworks outlining the tasks involved. One such framework is the
Rational Panning Model. Associated with the studies conducted by Taba and Tyler, this
framework provides for a distinction between aims, goals, and objectives as the starting
points for curriculum design. The flowchart below illustrates this model as cited by White
(1989, p. 26):
 Also known as the Means-Ends model, the Rational Planning Model situates the
objectives first prior to establishing the content, evaluation methods, and learning
experiences to be accomplished by learners. However, the use of an objectives-based model
runs the risk of reducing teachers to technicians or managers, leaving little room for
differentiation in the way lessons are taught. In addition to that, pre-specified objectives go
against the speculative nature of the educational process. This is true in ELT where
objectives cannot have a fixed nature owing to the fact that possible outcomes may vary or
deviate from these objectives.
In contrast, the Process Approach, as outlined by Taylor (1970), puts more weight on
the teacher contexts. The model views curriculum in terms of procedures and, therefore,
relates closely to the second perspective of curriculum development (i.e. a plan for building
a house) in which the process is worked out through the viewpoint of the inhabitants as
illustrated below:

Learning Aims/
Context Evaluation
Situation Purposes

While the means-ends approach outlined by the Rational Planning Model underscores
measurable goals (the what of instruction), the Process Approach outlines procedures (the
how). In place of strict short-term objectives, general principles are defined with a focus on
understanding rather than the acquisition of knowledge.
This perspective is based off of Jean Piaget’s work on how children learn and the
importance of active experience as a requirement to growth. This would mean observing the
learning situations from the teacher’s view and derive general principles from there. Hence,
the Process Approach encourages professional autonomy and allows teachers to make value
judgments during the course of teaching.
While the Rational Planning Model and Process Approach differ in terms of their
emphasis and ideological underpinnings (Reconstructionism and Progressivism,
respectively), they share the same principle in seeing curriculum development as a process
that starts with a blank slate. A third model proposed by Malcolm Skilbeck (as will be
discussed in the latter half of this paper) provides a more practical approach where both
objectives and processes are emphasized.

II. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRICULUM AND SYLLABUS

Before exploring the features and merits of Skilbeck’s Situational Curriculum Model, it is
important first to differentiate curriculum from syllabus.
Oftentimes, these terms are viewed as one and the same in some countries. In the British
educational system, a syllabus is concerned with content or subject. Curriculum, in this
context, refers to the totality of content to be taught and aims to be realized within one
school or educational system. Brumfit (1984), on the other hand, provides the following
descriptions for syllabus:
1. A syllabus is the specification of the work of a particular department in a school
or college, organized in subsections defining the work of a particular group or
class.
2. It is often linked to time, and will specify a starting point and ultimate goal;
3. It will specify some kind of sequence based on:
a). sequencing intrinsic to a theory of language learning or to the structure
specified material relatable to language acquisition;
b). sequencing constrained by administrative needs, e.g. materials;
4. It is a document of administrative convenience and will only be partly justified
on theoretical grounds and so is negotiable and adjustable;
5. It can only specify what is taught, it cannot organize what it learnt;
6. It is a public document and an expression of accountability.

In ELT, two common types of syllabuses are identified in Davies (1976):

 Type A (What is to be learnt?) Type B (How is it to be learnt?)

Interventionist Non-interventionist

External to the learner Internal to the learner

Other directed Inner directed or self-fulfilling

Determined by authority Negotiated between learners and

Teachers
Teacher as decision-maker Learner and teacher as joint decision-
makers
Content = What the subject is Content = What the subject is to the learner
to the expert
Content = A gift from the learner from the Content = What the learner brings and
teacher or knower wants
Objectives defined in advance Objectives described afterwards

Subject emphasis Process emphasis

Assessment by achievement or by mastery Assessment in relationship to learners’

criteria for success
Doing things to the learner Doing things for or with the learner

A curriculum, on the other hand, generally serves as the larger universe of

learning in which syllabi operate. A syllabus, therefore, is subordinate to the curriculum
designed by the institution. The descriptions below which were derived from
LeverageEdu.com, emphasize this principle among other key differences between
curricula and syllabi:

 The curriculum remains prescriptive as its structure needs to be followed in the

specified manner while the syllabus is more descriptive and flexible and can be
covered in a non-prescriptive manner.
 The curriculum is meticulously designed by the school or college administration
while the syllabus gets created by teachers by the educational board.
 The curriculum stays the same for every teacher while the syllabus can differ and
it can be covered distinctively as per their teaching style.
 Another important point of difference between syllabus vs curriculum is that the
term curriculum originated from the Latin “curricule” which means to run or
course. On the other hand, the term syllabus finds its origins in the Greek
“sittuba” meaning title slip or label.
  The curriculum encompasses a more extensive scope than the syllabus. This is
because the syllabus remains confined to a particular subject while the curriculum
provides the structure for the whole course.
 The syllabus is only provided for a year while the curriculum covers the whole
course.
 The curriculum contains all the subjects and outlines how they will be studied
during the course while the syllabus is the more detailed version for each subject
under the course.

III. SKILBECK’S SITUATIONAL CURRICULUM MODEL

Modern curriculum development has been defined by models based on two ideologies:
reconstructionism and progressivism. A second model, the situational model, is defined by
White as a renewal model due to its focus on building upon existing paradigms. Going back
to the house construction metaphor, the situational model takes on the view of the
curriculum as an already completed structure.
Proposed by Skilbeck (1984), the situational model is deeply rooted in cultural analysis
and looks at the school situation as the starting point for appraisal and innovation. Skilbeck
adds that the educational institution “should be a living educational environment, defined
and defining itself as a distinct entity and characterized by a definite pattern of
relationships, aims, values, norms, procedures, and roles.” In other words, the situational
model views curriculum development as a process internal to the institution, one that
involves its stakeholders (i.e. students) apart from the administrators themselves. Change
and innovation comes from within, not without.
Accomplishing this would require undergoing a well-defined process summarized below
by White:
1. Analyze the situation
The conduct of situational analysis precedes curriculum development. There is a need to
carefully identify and examine factors that exist in the social and cultural context where
the curriculum is going to be implemented.

One critical question to be asked here is “What are our curriculum problems and needs
and how can we meet them?” Analyzing these questions requires asking a series of key
questions relating to how the curriculum should impact the school and the larger
community:

Within the School:

 What is the existing curriculum including the school rules, rituals, and value sets?
 What is the students’ experience of (performance in, perception of) the
curriculum?
 What is the curriculum context within the school (i.e. social climate, patterns of
conduct, etc.)?
 What are the strengths and capabilities of the staff?

Wider Environment
 What kind of neighborhood, community, society are we serving?
 What are the key educational policies to which we should be responding (Local
Education Authority, national)?
 What kinds of resource/support can we draw upon (LEAs, teachers’ centers,
community, teacher education, research, etc.)?
 What are some of the changes, proposals, and developments in curriculum
practice and ideas that could be useful for us here?

2. Define objectives
Objectives are not a once-for-all matter which occurs at an initial stage of a planning
model, and the question of objectives will already arise during the situational analysis.
 Objectives in a curriculum should be seated as desirable student learnings and as
actions to be undertaken by teachers and those associated with them to affect,
influence or bring about these learnings; they need to be clear, concise, and to be
capable of being understood by the learners themselves.
 Objectives are directional and dynamic in that they must be reviewed, modified,
and if necessary reformulated progressively as the teaching-learning process
unfolds.
 Objectives gain their legitimacy by being related systematically both to general
aims and to the practicalities of teaching and learning, and by the manner of their
 construction and adoption in the school. It is desirable to try to show that the
objectives have a rational and legitimate basis.
 There are several types of objectives: broad and general-specific, long and short-
term; higher order cognitive – lower order informational; subject-specific-global;
and so on. Working groups need to select and plot types of objectives.
 The construction of curriculum objectives has to be participatory, involving
students as well as teachers, parents and community as well as professionals.

3. Design the teaching - learning program

In making curriculum decisions, schools must have the autonomy to define objectives,
interpret, and implement programs across the following dimensions:
 Fundamental orientation of the curriculum, as for example areas of experience in
a core curriculum or academic specialization or leisure interests in the electives
part of the curriculum;
 The groupings and combinations of subject matter;
 The groupings of students, for example mixed ability, or special interest groups;
 The relationship of learning in the different subject areas to the overall objectives
of the curriculum;
 The scope, sequence and structure of teaching content;
 Space, resources, materials, equipment;
 The proposed methods of teaching and learning;
 Staffing needs and allocations;
 Timetabling and scheduling.

4. Interpret and implement the program.

According to White (1989), interpretation and implementation of the curriculum is both
crucial and problematic in the fact that success depends on how well the curriculum
framers navigate around specific challenges such as uncertainty, confusion, and
resistance in accomplishing what was initially envisaged. Seeing that the curriculum is
“not an accidental extra; but is of the essence of the institution (Skilbeck, 1984),
problems in the implementation of the curriculum should be anticipated and possible
solutions and interventions are crafted.
 5. Assess and evaluate
There is a significant difference between assessment and evaluation in the context of
curriculum development. Assessment pertains to the process of determining and passing
judgments on students’ learning potential and performance. Evaluation, on the other
hand, is described as the assembling of evidence on and making judgments about the
curriculum which involves the plan, design, and implementation of the curriculum.

The Value of the Situational Model to Curriculum Development

Following this sequence aids in identifying tasks that need to be accomplished and
encourages collaborative decision-making in a way that minimizes arbitrary and
authoritarian actions. The sequence ensures coordination and makes every stakeholder
feel invested in what was planned and what is happening in the curriculum.
In assessing the relevance of Skilbeck’s Situational Model to today’s educational
contexts, institutions may find it useful in effecting curriculum innovation based on
existing frameworks. Since this model uses the school situation as a point of departure,
identifying and defining problems are made more effective. In another way, a situational
approach to curriculum development could help in understanding the problems and
challenges often encountered in curriculum innovation. In White’s view, the situational
model provides a “practical as well as a rational basis for dealing with the complexities
involved in language curriculum development…”
By embracing both the domains of objectives and process, the Situational Model
presents a viable means to systematize existing practices. This allows for school-based
initiatives for curriculum renewal, laying the groundwork for innovation.

IMPLICATIONS IN THE SUPERVISION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Supervision is not only a matter of evaluating teacher’s performance and assessing
the experiences of stakeholders, particularly students. Its role also extends towards
curriculum development which is, in itself, a complex field that requires the convergence
of inputs coming from all stakeholders. Accomplishing this would require effective
leadership, particularly in analyzing existing frameworks, assessing institutional needs,
equipping the teaching staff with the skills and materials needed to ensure the
curriculum’s success, and finding areas of improvement.
 The complexity of the task also necessitates viewing curriculum design and
implementation as a dynamic process, one that takes into account variable factors that
are difficult to control. Nonetheless, careful planning in every phase of the process –
from laying down the institution’s value systems to evaluating a curriculum’s potential
for reconstruction – must focus on aligning the content, objectives, and procedures to
actual teaching-learning contexts.
After all, supervision is not always a matter of imposing pre-specified goals and
expecting exact outcomes. Considering the dynamic nature of institutions and the
community they are situated, there is always ample space to improve what exists by
identifying key strengths and weaknesses and empowering the teaching force as well as
the wider community outside the school to weigh in as Skilbeck’s Situational Curriculum
Model proposes.
In any case, as teachers who may have a desire to assume supervisory roles, we
should look at curriculum development as a training ground for acquiring leadership
skills that will prepare us for more critical institutional activities that come our way.

REFERENCES
Finney, D. (2002). The ELT Curriculum: A Flexible Model for a Changing World. In J. C.
Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of
Current Practice (pp. 69–79). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Postlethwaite, N. (1978). Curriculum development and educational planning. In

Educational planning, towards a qualitative perspective (pp. 27–40). UNESCO IIEP .

“Syllabus vs Curriculum.” Leverage Edu, 6 Feb. 2024,

https://leverageedu.com/blog/syllabus-vs-curriculum/. Retrieved: June 26, 2024.

White, R. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation, and Management. Great
Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

White, R. (1989). Curriculum studies and ELT. System 17(1): 83-93.