Theories of educational administration often reflect the period in which they were developed. The political, economic or social aspects of the culture and the values ​​and norms considered important not only help to form the theory, but also determine the extent to which the practice is implemented. The recent rediscovery of instructional and curriculum leadership is a response to the demands of federal and state legislation and performance requirements, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures. These results-oriented pressures have led academics and practitioners to seek the most effective ways to meet these higher academic standards. This is why program content and teaching practices have once again become the center of the public school system. Before the 1950s, empirical studies generally did not shed light on educational administrative practices. Instead, Heck and Hallinger (2005) found that less formal recommendations, based on personal experience, were passed from one administration to another. What principals saw as effective management, their beliefs about organizational structures, their value of instructional practice, and their identification/prioritization of the school's needs often informed the policy and practice of new administrators. Leadership focus was personal, subjective and locally oriented. The 1950s and 1960s saw the launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy's national commitment to space study and travel, and American efforts to prevent further expansion of the Soviet Union. Competition with the Russians demanded a technical and more scientific approach, which the federal government supported by funding math and science programs in public schools (McCue, February 15, 2012).......mid article..... .os Angeles: Sage. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of educational and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351. Heck, R.H. and Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 33(2), 229-244. doi:10.1177/1741143205051055Horng, E. and Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking on educational leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 66-69. Nettles, S. M. and Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: Implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736. Rettig, P.R. (2004). Beyond organizational tinkering: a new vision of school reform. Educational horizons, 82(4), 260-265.