Many educators believe that principals should play the role of instructional leader, and not just school manager ( Fink & Resnick, 2001). The reality is, however, that the many demands on a principal's time and management skills make it difficult for most of them to spend time in classrooms, except, often, when performing teacher evaluations. While principals often make sure teachers have opportunities for professional development, they themselves rarely have any time to directly affect their teachers' professional growth ( Fink & Resnick, 2001). At the same time, parents, the media, and government at local state and national levels have openly questioned whether our schools, and by extension our teachers, are doing an adequate job of teaching (Johnson et. al., 2000). One expert in the field, a principal himself, suggests that the solution is for principals to share the role of instructional leadership with teachers (Hoerr, 1996).

             The approach of sharing instructional leadership with teachers can present some organizational challenges. Typically, school districts are firmly divided into two professional tracks: the "administrative track, which includes the superintendent and assistants as well as principals and assistant principals. The other track includes the staff hired to foster curriculum development sometimes called instructional or professional development ( Fink & Resnick, 2001). Thus, in most schools and districts, the philosophy and organization tend to steer the principal away from instructional leadership. This division is accentuated by the profession of individuals through educational administrative levels. Typically a person has to choose between administrative roles (principal, superintendent) or instructional leadership (curriculum development), and it can be difficult to move between the two ( Fink & Resnick, 2001). .

             Virtually every school district in the country is making efforts to improve teaching, and, thus, student learning (Johnson et.