Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Redefining Curriculum Leadership for Principals: Perspectives of Texas Administrators 253
their role in the curriculum as participants instead of leaders. Statements such as, “evaluating
curriculum and make suggestions as needed” and “a person who supports and promotes the
curriculum of the campus” were common in this study. Terms such as ‘assisting,’ ‘supporting’
and ‘fostering’ were utilized much more often than the term leading. One participant defined
curriculum leadership as “being able to work with the staff in looking at the curriculum and
best practices.” Principals defined the curriculum in terms of the Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills (TEKS) and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS); the state
mandated teaching objectives and end of the year assessments. In other words, their concept
of curriculum was directly connected to the state objectives and test only. Only 26 of the 188
principals defined curriculum leadership as a role or responsibility of the principal and
indicated responsibilities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the
curriculum. Definitions included the support of district-developed curriculum, support of
instruction in the classroom, and ensuring that the TEKS are being followed by the teachers.
Basically, the practicing principals did not define curriculum leaders as those that were
responsible for the curriculum, rather as those whose role was supportive of the curriculum
and the teachers. It should be noted that 17 of the practicing principals indicated that the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) were the curriculum. In actuality, the TEKS
are grade-level objectives/standards and student expectations mandated by the state to be
taught within the curriculum and are not the total curriculum. The principals’ responses
indicated that principals did not define curriculum as content objectives taught in an
appropriate sequence and timeframe and at the appropriate learning level to meet the student
expectations.
Of the 124 Texas superintendents that responded, curriculum leadership was defined
primarily in a similar manner as the principals. Nineteen superintendents focused on the role
of the principal as curriculum leader in ensuring that the district curriculum was followed by
the teachers. One superintendent stated, “Knowing the curriculum plan for the district and
getting the staff to buy in [is important]” while another said, “Curriculum leadership is the
ability to lead staff in the curriculum the district has chosen like C-Scope.” C-Scope is a
packaged curriculum adopted by many Texas districts. Curriculum leadership was not the
primary responsibility of the principal, as indicated by this statement, “Curriculum leadership
is a district responsibility. This role defines the scope and sequence, depth and breadth and
rigor of the curriculum.” Though not as many as the principals, 14 superintendents defined
curriculum leadership in terms of teaching the TEKS objectives in order to pass the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. Only two of the 124 participants indicated
that the principal had a direct role in the development, implementation and evaluation of the
curriculum. One stated, “Understanding the curriculum to the point of leadership in
curriculum development and implementation… [is important]” and another stressed,
“Curriculum leadership should be developed both vertically and horizontally. Principals have
to rely on previous grade levels to provide appropriate curriculum.”
The majority of Texas superintendents did not define curriculum leadership as a direct
role or responsibility of the principal. Instead, curriculum leadership for the principal was
discussed in terms of ensuring that teachers were supported in the TEKS and/or district
curriculum and in evaluation of effective instructional teaching strategies in the classroom.
Therefore, the superintendents who are hiring campus principals had little or no expectation
for curriculum knowledge or leadership; yet, they expected the principal to evaluate teacher
effectiveness in the classroom. These results indicated that many Texas principals and
superintendents do not make the connection between the development and implementation of
curriculum to the implementation and evaluation of teacher effectiveness in the classroom.