Article Critique help

201

TEAcHER LEADERSHIP IN AN ELEMENTARY ScHOOL: A cASE STUDY OF INSTRUcTIONAL SUPPORT

SPEcIALISTS

Nathan Bond Texas State University

Some teachers reach a point in their careers when they crave greater decision-making authority in their schools without becoming adminis- trators. Teacher leadership appears to address teachers’ unmet profes- sional needs by allowing them to continue instructing children while having greater influence beyond their classrooms. This case study examined three teacher leaders who served as instructional support specialists in their elementary school. In this study, an instructional support specialist was a teacher who remained in the classroom, devel- oped an expertise for a particular student type, and helped colleagues teach these students. Each teacher leader differed by focusing on either students with dyslexia, English language learners, or gifted students. Data were collected through focus group and individual interviews with the teacher leaders. An analysis of the data found that the instruc- tional support specialists contributed greatly to their school through their leadership actions. The teacher leaders taught and assessed stu- dents, collaborated with colleagues, partnered with parents, and assist- ed administrators. The findings indicate that the role of instructional support specialist may be ideal for teachers whose careers have pla- teaued and who are seeking leadership opportunities. The descriptions of these teachers’ work may inform others who are interested in teach- er leadership at the elementary school level.

Keywords: teacher leadership, elementary school, reading specialist, ESL specialist, gifted specialist

Some scholars claim that teaching is a flat profession, meaning the job does not change—a new teacher on the first day in the classroom has the same responsibilities as a teacher with many years of experience (Hargreaves, 2010; Lortie, 1975). Over time the repetitive nature of the work becomes unsatisfying to some people, and they reach a point in their careers when they yearn for more (Dawson, 2014). They want regenerative

opportunities that feed their intellectual curi- osity as well as generative opportunities that expand their sphere of influence (Margolis & Doring, 2013). Such teachers crave greater decision-making authority in schools, but they have no interest in becoming administra- tors (Ingersoll, May, & Collins, 2019).

Teacher leadership appears as a viable way for educators to address their unmet pro- fessional needs. By definition, teacher leaders

202 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

remain in the classroom teaching children while simultaneously participating in mean- ingful activities beyond the classroom that contribute positively to the school (Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Teacher leaders can serve in a seemingly unlimited number of ways because schools can tailor the leadership posi- tion to fit the specific school context (Cooper, Stanulis, Brondyk, Hamilton, Macaluso, & Meier, 2016).

In the past, schools have created various teacher leadership roles, such as mentors, cooperating teachers, department chairs, team leaders, and professional developers (Bond, 2015). The research examining these areas is robust (Nguyen, Harris, & Ng, 2020). However, a review of the scholarly litera- ture revealed few studies about some of the more common leadership roles in elementary schools, namely reading specialist, English as a Second Language (ESL) specialist, and gifted specialist. The review uncovered no studies that looked at all three together.

The purpose of the study described in this article was to examine the three specialist roles in an elementary school and delve more deeply into how the teachers in these posi- tions served as teacher leaders. The district in which the school was located referred to these roles as instructional support specialists. The district designed the roles so that all per- formed at least the functions of instructional specialist, curriculum specialist, resource provider, mentor, and learning facilitator (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Each instruction- al support specialist differed by focusing on a student type: students with dyslexia, English language learners (ELLs), or gifted students. The study’s research question was, “How do these instructional support specialists serve as teacher leaders in their school?” The findings are significant—they suggest that the role of instructional support specialist may be ideal for teachers whose careers have plateaued and who are seeking leadership opportunities.

The descriptions of these teachers’ work may inform others who are interested in teacher leadership at the elementary school level.

Conceptual Framework The theory of distributed leadership

serves as the conceptual framework for the study (Spillane, 2006). According to this theory, leadership is distributed or shared among people in an organization. Rather than one person acting as leader, multiple people carry out leadership functions in the organization simultaneously (Lambert, 2003). People think and work collectively in a web-like structure and alternate between serving as leaders and as followers. The con- text and organic nature of the work dictate how people interact and lead.

Review of Literature The study draws on the scholarship re-

garding teacher leadership in three fields: reading specialists, ESL specialists, and gifted specialists. Two issues arose during the review. First, some articles focused only on leadership and did not mention the specific phrase teacher leadership. These general articles on leadership were includ- ed in the review because teachers in the articles held leadership positions. Second, nomenclature caused problems. Scholars in each field use different titles when referring to the specialists, as explained in the fol- lowing discussion. Articles were included if they focused on the essence of the specialist role, regardless of terminology.

Reading Specialists Educators use four titles when referring

to reading specialists (Bean et al., 2015). The first is literacy or instructional coach. This specialist works directly with teachers, observ- ing them in the classroom and recommending ways to improve their reading instruction. The literacy coach provides instructional resources

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 203

to teachers, facilitates professional develop- ment, and assists school administrators. The second title is the reading teacher or reading interventionist. This specialist assesses stu- dents’ reading abilities, analyzes data from as- sessments, and uses the data to design specific instruction for struggling readers. The reading supervisor, the third title, coordinates school- or district-wide reading programs, develops curricula, and supports teachers by providing instructional resources and professional devel- opment. The fourth title, the reading or literacy specialist, fulfills all roles mentioned in the three previous titles.

In 2010, the International Literacy Asso- ciation (ILA) developed a set of professional standards codifying a reading specialist’s knowledge in six areas: foundational knowl- edge, curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, diversity, literate environ- ment, and professional learning and leader- ship. According to the ILA, reading specialists are leaders because they serve as resources to others, facilitate professional development, and coordinate school-wide literacy programs (Bean, Dagen, Ippolito, & Kern, 2018; Kern, 2011; Lipp, 2017). The ILA also said that reading specialists lead the school or district’s P–12 reading program and the school’s entire literacy program, involving teachers from all subject areas (Parsons, 2018).

Reading specialists lead by completing instructional and non-instructional duties. They teach and assess students, analyze data generated from assessments, and modify in- struction based on assessment results (Bean, 2015; Bean et al., 2015). With colleagues, they develop curricula, plan lessons, coach peers, and facilitate professional development activities (Ginsburg, 2012; Steinbacher-Reed & Powers, 2011). Finally, they interact with parents and supervise paraprofessionals who work alongside teachers in classrooms (Gal- loway & Lesaux, 2014; Jones, Barksdale, Triplett, Potts, & Lalik, 2010).

ESL Specialists Educators use several terms when refer-

ring to the person who works with ELLs, i.e., ESL specialist, ESL facilitator, and language acquisition specialist (Russell, 2012; Smith, 2008). The title ESL specialist is generally used in schools employing a pullout model whereby students leave their homeroom and receive specialized ESL instruction in an- other room for a set amount of time (Bell & Baecher, 2012).

TESOL International Association adopt- ed a set of professional standards for the title ESL specialist in 2010. According to the stan- dards, ESL specialists possess knowledge in five areas: the language, the sociocultural context of ELLs, planning and implementing instruction, assessment and evaluation, and professionalism and leadership. The leader- ship standard states that leaders “collaborate with other educators, know policies and leg- islation and the rights of ELLs, advocate for ELLs and their families, engage in self-as- sessment and reflection, pursue continuous professional development, and hone their teaching practice through supervised teach- ing” (TESOL, 2019, p. 11).

ESL specialists generally are the leaders of the school’s ESL program. They set the program’s vision and manage day-to-day operations (Abraham & Chumley, 1994). They use their knowledge of content, culture, language, and pedagogy, and their communi- cation skills, to create organizational condi- tions that support ELLs (McGee, Haworth, & MacIntyre, 2015). They exhibit courage to overcome obstacles and a desire to cultivate trust and respect among the program’s stake- holders (Greenier & Whitehead, 2015).

ESL specialists coordinate testing. They administer language assessments, interpret results, maintain accurate records, and place ELLs in optimal learning environments (Abraham & Chumley, 1994; McGee, Ha- worth, & MacIntyre, 2015). They also help

204 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

colleagues understand the results of student assessments (Bell & Baecher, 2012).

ESL specialists collaborate with col- leagues (Martin-Beltran & Peercy, 2014). They serve as instructional resources for teachers, offer advice, and encourage empa- thy with ELLs (Smith, 2008). They provide professional development through informal conversations and formal trainings (Baecher, 2012). They know how to tailor professional development for specific grade levels and for teachers’ experience levels. For new teachers, they model lessons on language acquisition strategies and recommend ways to improve instruction (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010; Von Esch, 2013). For experienced teachers, they coach, co-teach, and consult (Russell, 2012). As professional developers they strive to ex- pand teachers’ knowledge base for teaching linguistically diverse students and increase ELLs’ learning (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010).

ESL specialists work with other stake- holders in the school, assisting administrators in oversight of the ESL program (Von Esch, 2013), formulation of district policy (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010), and procurement of resources through grants (Russell, 2012). Fi- nally, ESL specialists form partnerships with parents and community members to build programs that are responsive to and respectful of ELLs (Hernandez & Soloroza, 2009).

Gifted Specialists Scholars use two terms when describing

teachers who specialize in gifted education. A gifted coordinator oversees the development, supervision, and implementation of programs for gifted students and generally operates from the school district’s central office (Farrell, 2016). The second term, a gifted specialist, is a teacher of gifted students in a school who provides services through pull- out programs, in self-contained classrooms, or via consultation working alongside teach- ers (Schroth, 2007). The gifted coordinator

and the gifted specialist are sometimes the only district employees who have formal in-depth training on gifted students’ unique cognitive and affective learning needs (Reis & Renzulli, 2010).

In 2013, the National Association for Gift- ed Children and the Council for Exceptional Children developed professional standards outlining what gifted specialists do. Accord- ing to the standards, gifted specialists possess knowledge in seven areas: learner develop- ment and individual learning differences, learning environments, curricular content knowledge, assessment, instructional plan- ning and strategies, professional learning and ethical practice, and collaboration. Although the term leadership does not appear in the standards, some teacher leadership skills, such as advocating, mentoring, and collabo- rating, are mentioned in standards 6 and 7. In her analysis of the standards, Vidergor (2015) states that leadership is “overarching and cov- ers all standards” (p. 64).

Gifted specialists lead by simultaneously fulfilling instructional and administrative functions that contribute to the school’s over- all vision (Vidergor, 2015). In the instruction- al capacity, gifted specialists assess students’ learning needs, develop personalized learning plans for students, and monitor the comple- tion of the plans. The specialists advocate so gifted students receive appropriate support and recognition.

Furthermore, gifted specialists lead fellow teachers. They understand best practices for teaching gifted students and exemplify these practices in their own instruction (Vidergor, 2015). They know how to differentiate the curriculum and deliver instruction that fosters higher-order thinking (Van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). Because gifted specialists clearly understand effective teaching, they can mentor colleagues to develop lessons and supplemental activities with the depth and complexity appropriate for students who

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 205

master information quickly (Farrell, 2016). Administratively, gifted specialists work

closely with principals, sometimes serving as members of the school’s leadership staff (Vidergor, 2015). Gifted specialists and ad- ministrators oversee the implementation of school-wide gifted programs and develop policy for managing the programs (Best, Cra- ven, & West, 2008). Finally, gifted specialists raise funds to supplement the programs, serve as liaison to parents and the community, and dispel myths commonly held by the public about gifted education (Van Tassel-Baska, & Stambaugh, 2006).

Methods This descriptive multiple case study

examined three teacher leaders who served as instructional support specialists in an elementary school. Case study methodolo- gy is ideal when studying a complex social phenomenon in depth (Yin, 2018). For this study, the unit of analysis was an instruction- al support specialist.

Setting The three participants taught in the

same elementary school in Eanes Indepen- dent School District (ISD) (real name), a high-performing district located in the south- western part of Austin, Texas. The school is one of six elementary schools in the district. According to the latest available data on the district’s website, 569 students attend- ed kindergarten through fifth grade during the 2018–2019 academic year. Student de- mographics were 0.5% African American, 15.5% Asian, 10.2% Hispanic, 5.3% Two or More Races, and 68.5% White. The state rat- ed the school as exemplary, based on student accountability measures.

The school provided extra support to students receiving special services through a pullout program called W.I.N. Time (What I Need Time). During W.I.N. Time, students

left their homeroom class and worked for 45 minutes four to five times per week in small groups with a teacher who specialized in ei- ther dyslexia, ESL, or gifted education. The district referred to these teachers as instruc- tional support specialists. Of the 569 students in the school, 59 (10.3%) worked with the reading specialist, 19 (3.3%) with the ESL specialist, and 78 (13.7%) with the gifted specialist. There are four reading specialists at the school. This study focuses on only one of the reading specialists.

Participants Amy (all participants’ names are pseud-

onyms) served as the reading specialist and the team leader of instructional support specialists. After completing her student teaching 16 years ago, she was hired at this school, taught first grade for eleven years and then applied for the reading specialist position when it became available. She wanted to help students with dyslexia. She has held the reading specialist position for the past five years. The school asks her to fo- cus on students with dyslexia, although some students in the school have other reading difficulties. Homeroom teachers assist those students. Amy took undergraduate reading courses as part of her university-based teach- er preparation program, and later returned to university and completed several advanced reading courses as part of her master’s de- gree in elementary education. Since becom- ing a specialist, she has completed several commercially available professional devel- opment workshops on dyslexia.

Carol, the second participant, taught ESL in a nearby district for 13 years before secur- ing the ESL specialist position at this school. She was a native speaker of Spanish and had been labeled ELL as a child. She has served in her current capacity for the past 15 years. Several years ago, her colleagues named her Teacher of the Year. As an undergraduate

206 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

student, she took specific courses that pre- pared her to teach ESL. Since becoming a specialist, she has earned her master’s degree in elementary education, and she regularly attends workshops on ESL hosted by the state.

Susan, the third participant, taught all elementary grade levels in several districts in the area and in another Texas city for 12 years. She applied at the school in order to live near her parents. For the next nine years, she primarily taught first grade. She had first interested in gifted education after taking several workshops on the topic early in her career. She later returned to university and studied gifted education as part of her master’s degree in elementary education. When the position for the gifted specialist became available three years ago, she ap- plied because she wanted to work with gifted students at all grade levels. Since becoming a specialist, she has attended multiple work- shops on gifted education.

Table 1. Overview of the Participants

Amy Carol Susan

Specialty Reading ESL Gifted

Years in Teaching 16 28 24

Years at the School 16 15 12

Years as a Specialist 5 15 3

Gender Female Female Female

Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic White

Researcher’s Positionality All three participants graduated from a

specialized master’s degree program called Partnership in Teacher Excellence Program (PTEP). Administrators in Eanes ISD and Texas State University co-constructed the program to help teachers in the district become subject-area experts and teacher leaders (Bond, Goodwin, & Summers, 2013). As a faculty member in PTEP, I had taught the three participants in my teacher

leadership course. Amy and Carol complet- ed the course in 2008, and Susan completed it in 2011. Over the years, we have stayed in contact with each other. After PTEP ended in 2017, I was curious to learn more about how these graduates were serving as teach- er leaders. I conducted this study in 2020 during my sabbatical.

Data Sources, Analysis, and Trustworthiness Criteria

After securing permission from the Institu- tional Review Board of Eanes ISD and at Texas State University, I contacted the three teachers and asked them to participate in the study. I purposely chose them because they were my former students and were instructional support specialists in the same elementary school. After they consented, I conducted an hour-long focus group interview with all three participants in the school’s library. I chose the focus group interview approach because Amy and Carol had taken my teacher leadership course twelve years ago and Susan had taken it nine years ago, and I thought a group discussion would help refresh their memories of the master’s degree program and the teacher leadership course. Questions included the following: Which parts of PTEP did you find meaningful as a teacher? What did you learn about teacher leadership during my course? Which of the following top- ics did you find useful: professional learning communities, peer coaching, mentoring, action research, advocacy? Why?

I then scheduled an individual semi-structured interview with each par- ticipant. These hour-long interviews were conducted either in person in the teacher’s room at school or online via videoconfer- encing to gather more in-depth information about each participant and her understand- ing of teacher leadership. Questions includ- ed the following: What are some key events in your professional biography? What is your understanding of teacher leadership?

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 207

What are some ways that you are currently serving as a leader? What are some ways that you want to lead in the future?

I audiotaped the interviews and transcribed them verbatim myself. To analyze the data, I followed the constant-comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). I first read each transcript and identified codes. Then, I reread the transcripts, confirming existing codes and noting any new ones. Next, I conducted a cross-case analysis by organizing the codes into matrices and comparing the codes in all three cases (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2020). Emerging from this iterative process of analysis were themes that appeared in all three cases.

To establish trustworthiness, I member checked my findings with each participant to ensure that my understanding was accurate (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). I also triangulat- ed the data and included only themes that appeared in all three cases. Finally, I main- tained a reflexive journal that allowed me to record my preliminary analyses and reflec- tions while collecting the data (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).

Findings This study examined three teacher leaders

who served as instructional support special- ists in an elementary school. An analysis of the data yielded four themes that emerged from all three cases. The instructional sup- port specialists taught and assessed students, collaborated with teachers, partnered with parents, and assisted administrators.

Theme One: Teaching and Assessing Students

The teacher leaders spent most of their time with students. Throughout the year they formally assessed students to determine placement in the program. They also prepared students for the state’s required high-stakes assessments. Carol, the ESL specialist, noted,

“The children are formally tested twice each year. They are tested for language proficiency, which is a lot of reading, and they are tested on the STAAR [the state’s official assess- ment for content knowledge].” As part of her responsibilities, she coached students on test-taking strategies. She continued, “Stu- dents have to speak into a computer and be taped. The questions are complex and often include three parts. Some of the students are ready, and some of them are not.”

Although assessment was important, teaching was even more so. The teacher lead- ers spent most of their time each day teaching students. The school implemented a pullout program called W.I.N. Time (What I Need Time) that allowed the instructional support specialists to work with children requiring spe- cial services for 45 minutes four to five times per week. Children with dyslexia, ELLs, and gifted students worked with their designated teacher. Susan, the gifted specialist, shared an example describing how she utilized W.I.N. Time. She recently taught an interdisciplin- ary unit on archeology in which the gifted students studied ancient cultures and cultural universals. By completing various activities in the unit, the children developed their cre- ativity and problem-solving skills. For the culminating project, the students used their new content knowledge and thinking skills to create a new culture.

In addition to assessment and instruc- tion, the teacher leaders taught their students self-advocacy skills that they could use now and in the future. Amy, the reading specialist, explained, “My students are very comfort- able with me because I teach them in small groups and because I’ve taught some of them for three or four years. We know each other really well.” She used her close profession- al relationship with the students to have frank conversations about learning. She told them, “I’m not going to always be there with you.” Hoping to be proactive, she taught

208 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

her students ways to ask future teachers to integrate teaching strategies that would help when their learning needs were not being met.

Theme Two: Collaborating with Teachers The teacher leaders mentored and sup-

ported colleagues in the school. They showed fellow teachers how to differentiate the cur- riculum and instruction for students receiving special services. Susan, the gifted specialist, once modeled a demonstration lesson for a fifth grade teacher who wanted to see how sci- ence concepts were taught in first grade. Susan explained, “She was interested in the teaching approaches at the primary level and in learning what … first grade teachers do and how [they] work with students of that age.” After the les- son, Susan and the colleague debriefed and shared their insights. Through the process, both increased their pedagogical knowledge and developed a stronger professional relationship.

The teacher leaders also located resources for colleagues. Amy, the reading specialist, commented, “I try to stay aware of current trends in education and know what resources are available. There are so many technology tools and different methods of instruction. You need someone to filter the good ones from the bad ones.” She piloted newly found resources in her own lessons and then shared the effective ones with teammates. She add- ed, “There are so many good teachers on our campus. I learn from them, and they learn from me. It’s a back-and-forth thing among us teachers. We’re always sharing ideas.”

In addition to helping with the curricu- lum and the instruction, the teacher leaders educated colleagues on assessments. Carol, the ESL specialist, explained, “I give the teachers in the school the ins and outs of how to test the students at the end of the year. I serve as a support.” During the year, teachers emailed her asking for help, so she distributed reminders about how to instruct and assess ELLs. Carol’s mentoring was

not limited to teachers in the school; she worked with colleagues at other elementary and middle schools in the district. When new teachers were hired, she invited them to her campus and explained how to administer the state tests. She even modeled lessons so that these colleagues could observe firsthand how to teach specific language skills.

Theme Three: Partnering with Parents The teacher leaders served as official

liaisons between the school and the commu- nity by communicating information to parents about the programs. Susan regularly received inquiries from parents about the admission process to the gifted program. They wanted to know the testing procedures and the criteria for admission. She noted, “The school puts me in charge of all communication about the program.” It was her responsibility to respond to parents’ questions.

Carol also spent time communicating key information to the ELLs’ parents. She ex- plained, “We have a Parents’ Night Meeting, when we tell them how the students qualify, what the expectations are, which tests they will be taking, and how we will support their child. I let the parents know that I offer free ESL classes after school to my students because they need more time practicing the language. We teachers are here for whatever they need.”

When Amy interacted with parents of stu- dents with dyslexia, she affirmed the import- ant support the parents themselves provided in educating their children. As part of the screening process, she interviewed parents to learn more about the child’s behavior at home. She asked questions to determine if there was a family history of dyslexia and if the child felt anxious about school. To pro- mote open communication among parents, students, and teachers throughout the school year, Amy regularly posted useful tips about reading on her blog and social media account.

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 209

Theme Four: Assisting Administrators The teacher leaders worked closely with

school administrators. In addition to serving as the reading specialist, Amy served as the leader of the instructional support specialist team, which included herself, Susan, Carol, and the special education teacher. As the team leader, Amy interacted regularly with the prin- cipal. When she received emails from him, she shared the key information with the other instructional support specialists. She also represented the team at the principal’s cam- pus leadership meetings at which she and the grade-level team leaders made school-wide decisions, such as setting the school’s daily bell schedule and developing the yearlong calendar of events. Her efforts during these meetings helped to ensure that students who worked with instructional support specialists received the best possible education.

On behalf of the principal, the teacher leaders monitored the school’s compliance with all official district and state require- ments. Carol recalled a problem that arose last year regarding the state-required training that all teachers had to receive before administer- ing the ESL tests. The principal wanted the teachers to complete the 45-minute training before the school day began, but Carol wor- ried that some teachers might not finish in the allotted time, and then some children might be unsupervised in their classrooms. To solve the problem, Carol, with the principal’s per- mission, contacted the district-level ESL su- pervisor and secured substitute teachers who rotated through classrooms monitoring stu- dents while Carol trained individual teachers.

The teacher leaders implemented school- wide projects during the school year. Susan, the gifted specialist, oversaw two projects during the fall semester: Cardboard Creativ- ity Day and Dot Day. For Cardboard Day, children used their innovative thinking and problem-solving skills to invent unique items made solely from cardboard boxes. For Dot

Day, children used their creative thinking skills to draw pictures made only with ink dots from a pen. The principal asked Susan to lead these special events and provide teachers and parents with pertinent information.

Discussion The findings from this investigation af-

firmed existing research and added new infor- mation to the scholarship on teacher leaders serving as specialists in their elementary schools. The emerging themes corresponded to the four stakeholder groups with whom the teacher leaders worked: students, teachers, parents, and administrators.

Findings Found in Previous Research The teacher leaders’ job duties fell into

the two broad categories of instructional and administrative responsibilities. The teacher leaders in the study above did not leave the classroom and become administrators; in- stead, they remained in the classroom working directly with students. In their review of the literature on teacher leadership, Wenner and Campbell (2017) claimed that two key defin- ing characteristics of teacher leaders are their classroom presence and focus on children.

Besides instructing students, the teacher leaders above taught colleagues by providing professional development through both infor- mal conversations and formal workshops. The teacher leaders used the extensive specialized knowledge that they gained from teaching these groups of students and from completing advanced coursework at the university. Bae- cher (2012) found that teacher leaders who were reading specialists were well-suited to provide professional development because they possessed an expertise in reading. Sim- ilarly, Dove and Honigfeld (2010) discovered that teacher leaders with expertise in sec- ond-language acquisition could teach demon- stration lessons for colleagues and model how to adapt instructional strategies for ELLs.

210 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

In terms of administrative responsibilities, the teacher leaders above assisted principals in the management of their respective pro- grams for dyslexic students, ELLs, and gift- ed students. Kern (2011) found that teacher leaders possessed the requisite knowledge and skills to establish a vision for a reading program and coordinate its day-to-day opera- tions. Similarly, Von Esch (2013) discovered that teacher leaders could do the same for their ESL programs.

Furthermore, the teacher leaders’ ad- ministrative duties included cultivating professional relationships with parents and community members. The teacher leaders above served as bridges between the school and community by fielding questions and ed- ucating the public about their programs. Her- nandez and Solorza (2009) determined that teacher leaders who were ESL specialists were skillful in earning the trust and respect of people outside the school.

New Findings and Implications Three findings of this study appear to add

to the scholarly literature. First, the teacher leaders’ ability to communicate is important. Previous scholars have identified the skill of communication (Hernandez & Solorza, 2009); however, this study shows that teacher leaders communicate in many ways. Communication was a prominent strand running through all themes. The teacher leaders communicated with students through their instruction and assessments and with colleagues through in- formal conversations and formal workshops. Serving an external function for the school, teacher leaders communicated regularly with parents through emails, phone calls, and in-person meetings. The teacher leaders communicated with the principal through meetings and emails. Communication was important for the viability of their programs.

Second, the teacher leaders as specialists helped the school to comply with district and

state regulations. These teacher leaders kept updated on the latest changes by participat- ing in ongoing professional development and by meeting with experts. The teacher leaders as specialists then took action to ensure that the school satisfied all state and district requirements. In essence, they served as proxies for the principal—they were ad- ditional school professionals who cared and assumed responsibility for the reading, ESL, and gifted programs.

Third, the study examined all three spe- cialists as a group. No previous studies appear to have done this. The findings indicate that all three specialists performed similar func- tions: assessing and teaching students, men- toring colleagues, assisting administrators, and working with parents. For teachers inter- ested in leading, this study indicates that all instructional support specialists’ job respon- sibilities have certain similarities. The study indicates how administrators might develop these instructional support specialist roles in their schools and perhaps apply the findings from this study to other student populations, such as students in special education or at-risk students. In short, the findings may act as a template for others to use.

The findings have implications for schools interested in creating teacher lead- ership roles for teachers. This school de- veloped leadership roles for teachers on its campus who have expertise in a particular area, who want to remain in the classroom with students, and who want to contrib- ute to the school in meaningful ways. The teacher leaders have no interest in super- vising or evaluating colleagues. Instead, they coordinate student assessment, provide professional development to colleagues through workshops and peer coaching, and liaise with parents, community members, and administrators. This approach expands teachers’ influence and allows them to con- tribute meaningfully to the school. In short,

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 211

this approach actualizes the essence of dis- tributed leadership theory, whereby multiple teachers become experts in different areas, step forward, and lead. By allowing teachers to lead in these areas, the principal becomes free to focus on other school issues.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research

This case study attempted to describe how these instructional support specialists were serving as teacher leaders. The concept of teacher leadership was viewed from one perspective, namely that of the instructional support specialist. This narrowing created a limitation of the study and merits future research. To gain a fuller understanding of teacher leadership in future studies, inter- views with the principal, other teachers, and students in the school would provide a more comprehensive view of the instructional sup- port specialists’ leadership.

The data also indicate that the teacher leaders were teaching children; guiding them and their parents through the various steps of the reading, ESL, and gifted programs; men- toring teachers to differentiate their instruc- tion; and assisting the principal in monitoring the school’s compliance with district and state requirements. However, the data were unclear about the degree to which these teachers were making a difference. Therefore, two questions deserve future consideration: To what degree are these teacher leaders having an impact on their school? In which areas are these teacher leaders having the greatest impact?

Conclusion Several conclusions emerge based on the

findings of this study. The reading specialist, the ESL specialist, and the gifted specialist, known as instructional support specialists in this elementary school, are serving as teacher leaders. These teachers have remained in the classroom instructing students while assum- ing additional responsibilities beyond the classroom to benefit their school (Wenner & Campbell, 2017). As the theory of distributed leadership posits, they are doing their part to lead specific programs in the school (Spillane, 2006). Danielson (2005), a leading scholar on teacher leadership, claimed, “Every school and school district is stronger if and when it cultivates teachers as leaders; teacher leaders form the backbone of a school. They are go-to people; they understand the workings of the institution” (p. 37). Based on the findings of this study, instructional support specialists contribute greatly to their school through their leadership actions with students, teachers, parents, and administrators.

212 / Education Vol. 141 No. 4

References Abraham, P., & Chumley, J. (1994). Portrait of the ESL

teacher: Survey data from elementary schools in Massachusetts. Teacher Educator, 36(2), 87-101. doi: 10.1080/08878730009555255

Baecher, L. (2012). Pathways to teacher leadership among English-as-a-second-language teachers: Professional development by and for emerging teacher leaders. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 317- 330. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2012.657877

Bean, R. M. (2015). The reading specialist: Leadership and coaching for the classroom, school, and commu- nity. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bean, R. M., Dagen, A. S., Ippolito, J., & Kern, D. (2018). Principals’ perspectives on the roles of specialized literacy professionals. The Elementary School Jour- nal, 119(2), 327-350. DOI: 10.1086/700280

Bean, R. M., Kern, D., Goatley, V., Ortlieb, E., Shettel, J., Cassidy, J., … Quatroche, D. (2015). Specialized literacy professionals as literacy leaders: Results of a national survey. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(2), 83-114. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2014.998355

Bell, A. B., & Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a continuum: ESL teachers reporting on collaboration. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 488-515.

Best, B., Craven, S., & West, J. (2008). Gifted and tal- ented coordinator’s handbook. London: Optimus Publishing.

Bond, N. (2015). Teacher leaders as professional devel- opers. In N. Bond (Ed.), The power of teacher lead- ers: Their roles, influence, and impact (pp. 57-69). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bond, N., Goodwin, M., & Summers, E. (2013). The Partnership in Teacher Excellence Program: A district-university collaboration to create teacher leaders. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 91-100.

Cooper, K. S., Stanulis, R. N., Brondyk, S. K., Hamil- ton, E. R., Macaluso, M., & Meier, J. A. (2016). The teacher leadership process: Attempting change within embedded systems. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 85-113.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Danielson, C. (2005). Strengthening the school’s back- bone. Journal of Staff Development, 26(2), 34-37.

Dawson, M. (2014). Learning to lead through leading learning: Reducing career stagnation in experienced teachers. Leading and Managing, 20(2), 105-116.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage hand- book of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher lead- ership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22.

Farrell, S. J. (2016). An exploration of face-to-face and online professional development for gifted specialists. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning. (Accession No. 2017-19717-178)

Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2014). Leader, teach- er, diagnostician, colleague, and change agent: A synthesis of the research on the role of the reading specialist in this era of RTI—based literacy reform. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517-526. doi: 10.1002/ trtr.1251

Ginsburg, V. E. (2012). The changing role of the read- ing specialist: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (Accession Number ED548900)

Greenier, V. T., & Whitehead, G. E. K. (2015). Towards a model of teacher leadership in ELT: Authentic lead- ership in classroom practice. RELC Journal, 47(1), 79-95. DOI: 10.1177/0033688216631203

Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: The legacy of Dan Lortie’s Schoolteach- er: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 143-154. doi: 10.111/j.1467-873X.2009.00472.x

Hernandez, L., & Solorza, C. (2009). BETLA teach- er leaders: An unselfish sense of purpose. In G. Schmerler (Ed.), Teacher leaders: Transforming schools from the inside (pp. 57-66). New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.

International Literacy Association (2010). Standards for reading professionals-Revised 2010. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.

Ingersoll, R., May, H., & Collins, G. (2019). Recruitment, employment, retention and the minority teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(0), 1-42. doi: 10.14507/epaa.27.3714

Jones, T., Barksdale, M. A., Triplett, C. F., Potts, A., Lalik, C., & Smith, C. (2010). Complexities in the roles of reading specialists. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 3-12. doi: 10.5296/ije.v2i2.515

Kern, D. (2011). 62 years of the pendulum’s swing: The role of the reading specialist. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 67-72.

Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2017). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. Ox- ford, OH: Learning Forward.

Teacher Leadership In An Elementary School / 213

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evoca- tive context for teacher leadership. School Lead- ership and Management, 23(4), 421-430. doi: 10.1080/1363243032000150953

Lipp, J. R. (2017). The multi-faceted role of Ohio’s ele- mentary reading specialists: Instruction, assessment, leadership, and beyond. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (Accession Number ED584189)

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2013). What do to- day’s teachers want (and not want) from teach- er leaders? New Educator, 9(3), 192-209. doi: 10.1080/1547688X.2013.806724

Martin-Beltran, M., & Peercy, M. M. (2014). Collabora- tion to teach English language learners: Opportunities for shared teacher learning. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 721-737. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2014.885704

McGee, A., Haworth, P., & MacIntyre, L. (2015). Lead- ership practices to support teaching and learning for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 92-114. doi: 10.1002/tesq.162

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative re- search: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Association for Gifted Children & Council for Exceptional Children. (2013). NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented educa- tion. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org

Nguyen, D., Harris, A., & Ng, D. (2020). A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003- 2017): Evidence, patterns, and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(1), 60-80. doi: 10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023

Parsons, A. W. (2018). Becoming a literacy spe- cialist: Developing identities. Literacy Re- search and Instruction, 57(4), 387-407. DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2018.1493554

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current re- search. Learning and Individual Difference, 20(4), 308-317. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.01

Russell, F. A. (2012). A culture of collaboration: Meeting the instructional needs of adolescent English lan- guage learners. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 445-468.

Schroth, S. T. (2007). Perceptions of gifted program- ming: Degree of alignment in administrator, teacher, and gifted specialist beliefs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning. (Accession No. 2007-99005-063)

Smith, C. (2008). Six conversations: Mentoring col- leagues in an ESL context. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(3), 5-9.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steinbacher-Reed, C., & Powers, E. A. (2011). Coaching without a coach. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 67-72.

TESOL International Association (TESOL). (2019). Standards for initial TESOL pre-K-12 teacher prepa- ration programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Compre- hensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Vidergor, H. E. (2015). The role of the gifted and able coordinator. In H. E. Vidergor & C. R. Harris (Eds.), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners (pp. 57-76). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Von Esch, K. S. (2013). Negotiating the “middle” ground: How English learner (EL) focused teacher leaders and teachers work towards EL instructional change in mainstream elementary school classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest In- formation and Learning. (Accession No. ED558696)

Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134-171. doi: 10.3102/0034654316653478

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and meth- ods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.