Answer a question in a discussion question in 1 to 2 hours For $5n or $10

271

6Leading Change in Education

. Andersen Ross/Blend Images/Corbis

Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain the concept of differentiated leadership as it applies to schools.

2. Examine the roles for teacher leaders in school contexts today, and propose what skills and attributes are needed for teachers to be successful in those roles.

3. Assess the barriers for teacher leaders working in studio classroom-type environments as peer mentors.

4. Explain at least four criteria necessary for sustainable leadership that contribute to sustainable improvement in systems such as schools.

5. Discuss the flaws in a typical “one-shot” principal observation/evaluation approach with teachers, and propose a more meaningful, goal-oriented means of collaborative mentoring to improve teacher assessment.

co-photo

co-cn

co-box

co-cr

co-ct

CO_CRD

CT

CN

H1

CO_TX

CO_NL

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 271 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Chapter Introduction

Chapter Introduction Dr. Washington is a first year principal in an urban middle school in the Midwest. He is a former band director at a nearby high school and understands the value of collaboration and cooperation that students learn when they are part of a marching band. His goal is to fos- ter that collaboration in his new role as a principal. The school he is leading, however, has always been managed as a top-down, hierarchical system, with little or no opportunities for teachers to offer ideas for improving the school or collecting data to inform teaching. There are no professional learning communities, although grade level teams do meet monthly to discuss schedules, most particularly assemblies and field trips. Dr. Washington believes that some things must definitely change so that his faculty members take more ownership of their school. He has read about the term “distributed leadership,” but he has never seen it in action. “Where do I start?” he thinks, sitting at his desk in mid August before the first teacher work day begins.

Dr. Washington is not alone. There are many school leaders who are learning, often on the job, about how to facilitate authentic change that everyone in the school community understands, engages in and learns from. This chapter addresses selected contemporary trends regarding leadership in education for the 21st century. The focus is not just on leadership generically, but rather on the notion of leading for change. There are thousands of essays, research articles, and books explaining types of leadership, the attributes of great leaders, and the competencies required for leaders in education and in other professional fields. The selection of this chapter’s article excerpts is intended to evoke dialogue from multiple perspectives on leading change, as practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. The chapter does not presume to discuss the entire scope of leadership in schools but rather focuses on the integration of teachers as leaders who affect school culture, who understand the context in which they work, and who can learn to cooperate with building and district administrators to improve learning and teaching.

The chapter begins with an article by a principal who outlines the general trends emerging in educational leadership early in this century. LaQuanda Brown describes the idea that leadership can be transformational, and, as the principal’s job is evolving and expanding, leadership must also be shared. She names the underlying premise for all the pieces in this chapter that, though now obvious, has not always been articulated: All leadership initiatives must be focused on the ultimate goal of increasing student learning.

Research is crucial as we stretch the boundaries of the roles for teachers. Margolis and Doring study a studio classroom model in which teacher leaders teach K–12 students while their peer teachers watch and learn. This research describes the shift that happens when experienced teachers assume new roles as mentors and assessment experts in collaboration with university researchers who are monitoring the process of peer and teacher leadership.

Dufour and Mattos discuss the role of subject-matter experts as teacher leaders and propose that professional learning communities (PLCs) are a viable and valuable approach to leading for change that focuses on teaching and student learning. Collaboration continues to be a resound- ing theme across chapters in this volume as it is here in the discussion of leadership.

Andy Hargreaves comments on the positive changes in the field and outlines the need for sustainable leadership in the context of social justice goals, echoed by Sharratt and Fullan.

photo-caption

photo-box-right-thin

photo

box-1

BX1_H1

BX_TX

sec_t

kt i

bi

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 272 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Chapter Introduction

The concept of sustainability in the face of change in education is critical to practitioners and policy makers as new mandates and programs continue to appear.

Sharratt and Fullan describe an often overwhelming challenge in school environments today, that is, what to do with the amount of student achievement data available to improve learning and teaching. The authors discuss “second change agents” in a distributed leadership model, in which teachers themselves build a culture of learning as leaders.

Consistent with other chapters in this book, authors in this chapter support the notion of innova- tion in curriculum, instruction, and assessment, as long as such innovation is shared, grounded in research, and focused on the links between teaching, assessment, and student learning. Inher- ent in such innovation is the underlying theme of collaboration and learning environments in which data, teaching approaches, research, and assessment tools are disseminated, critiqued, and tested collectively. This is an important principle as the digital learning environment, which has the potential for both collaboration and isolation, becomes more central to students’ lives and informs the nature of transformational leadership in new ways.

Voices From the Field: Teacher Leaders

Tammy Bresnahan, Director of Research and Professional Development at A. D. Henderson School, Boca Raton, Florida

Different school leaders handle teacher leadership in different ways. It really depends on the leader of the school. Because if the leaders are not interested in lifting teachers up, empowering them, it’s a completely different thing. So, there are leaders who want to lift people up but are also afraid of giving up control. They are afraid that if they give up con- trol, then the quality might be compromised. Then there are school leaders who don’t want to share any power.

My current principal basically says, “You can do this job so much better, so much more effi- ciently than I, why wouldn’t I want to give you that power to do the things that are going to make you love your job even more?” She’s careful about who she does that with; she has given some leadership roles to some who haven’t been able to manage them, and she has had difficult conversations with them. She really tries to build them up and support them. People who didn’t see themselves as leaders have become leaders, because she has given them a pathway to do what they do best.

It’s really interesting about the role of the school leader in empowering teacher leaders. That said, the typical classroom teacher has no idea what these so-called teacher leaders actually do. I hear it all the time, “What does she even do?” “Do you even know what she does?” The school leader needs to be able to say, “I don’t know if you know this or not, but let me tell you what she actually does.”

Teacher leadership also gives teachers still in the classroom the idea that they have oppor- tunities, too, if they ever want them. The school leader needs to make sure that teachers know what we do. We need to be more visible about teacher leadership and who gets these positions. Teacher leaders are really important cogs in the wheel, in how a school runs.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 273 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement

6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement, by LaQuanda Brown

Introduction LaQuanda Brown’s article is an excellent introduction to the theme of this chapter, because she introduces many of the terms and concepts that explain what it means to “lead change in educa- tion” in the 21st century. Among the ideas she discusses are transformational leadership, shared leadership, school leadership teams, and teacher leadership.

Brown acknowledges that even though principals may want to share responsibilities, it is not always easy to build leadership capacity and to make it possible for others in a school to offer constructive solutions to problems. The author invites schools to focus on improvement by exam- ining student achievement data and then asking a series of “why” questions to evoke dialogue that teachers and administrators can discuss together.

The author wrote this article in 2008. It provides a principal’s perspective on this familiar trend in education at a time when the notion of teacher leadership was just beginning to be embraced in districts around the country. Brown is a principal herself in Macon, Georgia, and represents an increasing group of principals who are committed to teachers as leaders in their schools.

Excerpt The following is an excerpt from Brown, L. (2008). The case for teacher-led school improvement. Principal, 87(4), 28–32.

One of the new buzz phrases in education is “teachers as leaders.” While this term intrigues educational professionals, it is not a term that should be used loosely. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) contend that leadership is con- sidered to be vital to the successful functioning of many aspects of a school. Therefore, retaining effective teachers and developing them into leaders is essential for school improvement, which will ultimately lead to school suc- cess. And given the expanded roles and responsibilities of principals, it is cru- cial that district and school administrators cultivate teachers to successfully share leadership responsibilities.

Leithwood (1994) identifies the four I’s of school leadership—individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and ideal- ized influence—that are essential for schools to be successful in the 21st cen- tury. Leithwood’s four I’s are what he referred to as the elements of transfor- mational leadership. In a school where the principal is focused on building the leadership influence of teachers, the principal must teach, exhibit, and train teachers on the intellectual stimulation of school leadership. Through the intellectual-stimulation approach, the principal helps the school staff to have vision and foresight in looking at old problems in new ways by working together to create, identify, and implement innovative, workable solutions.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 274 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement

Build Capacity and Consensus

Administrators must build instructional capacity and instructional consensus among school staff. However, many administrators are still at a loss on how to accomplish this daunting task. The principal has to fulfill many complex administrative responsibilities each day. Some decisions must be made imme- diately, while other decisions may allow the principal to include input from teachers and other stakeholders. Gabriel (2005) writes that it is useful to let someone else propose the change and that the principal should not be the only person in the school to offer solutions.

For example, there may be a concept that the principal truly believes in, such as building time into the school day during which every student and teacher is involved in independent reading. However, before the principal brings this proposal to the faculty, he or she should find out if other members of the school staff share this same philosophy. If other staff members share the principal’s philosophy, then the issue should be introduced to the staff as a capacity- building activity. In addition to teachers, custodians and other staff members may also agree with the proposal. If this is the case, staff members (other than the principal and teachers) may introduce the initiative to the faculty to begin critical conversations on implementing the instructional practice into the daily school program. Administrators must be cognizant of the fact that true school improvement involves everyone on the school staff, and must therefore incorporate every member of the staff in the decision-making process.

Develop a Leadership Team

An additional component of creating an atmosphere of shared leadership, where teachers work collectively with administrators to implement research- based instructional practices and methodologies, is to create an effective school leadership team. A strong and purposeful leadership team is able to adequately sustain the responsibilities and challenges of becoming an effec- tive school. To create a strong leadership team, the principal must create an atmosphere of shared data collection and analysis, shared decision-making, and shared respect among the team. For example, the principal must create an environment where teachers feel comfortable offering suggestions, asking questions, and providing feedback. In addition, the atmosphere must be con- ducive to teachers sharing the responsibility of identifying problems, offering viable solutions, and working collaboratively to create a plan to implement agreed upon solutions.

DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) write about the power of col- lective intelligence, or the practice of professionals working collaboratively to solve problems within an organization, as well as the practice of “harness- ing the power of collective intelligence that already resides in the school to solve problems.” Similarly, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2004) describe the concept of agreed-upon processes that “enhance communication among community members, provide for efficient reconciliation of disagreements, and keep the members attuned to the current status of the community.” This research reflects the well-known fact that successful schools have a culture

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 275 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement

of collaborative, sound, research-based decision-making practices that focus on the needs of the school. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) note that “these schools made astonishing progress with existing amounts of time and funding. They did not wait for someone from the outside to give them the magic formula, the perfect program, or more resources.” Part of the culture of change and excellence involves a great deal of teacher collaboration and faculty ownership of identified issues and possible solutions.

Groom Teacher Leaders

School principals must create a cadre of teacher leaders for each grade level and for each content area. The teacher-leader selection process must be based on a variety of leadership traits and instructional qualities and must be equi- table, nonbiased and honest.

More important, the teacher leaders and the members of the school’s leader- ship teams should have an innate desire to serve, should have a high level of commitment to the total functioning of the school, and should have a spirit of dedicated volunteerism.

The principal should not be the only person choosing the teacher leaders. A principal may choose to have the school staff nominate teacher leaders, or per- haps there may be a teacher-leader nomination committee. Teachers should also have the option to decline the opportunity to become a teacher leader without fear of consequence. Furthermore, the teacher-leader selection pro- cess should result in teacher leaders wanting to serve the school by taking part in the school-improvement group. Essentially, this practice gives teachers the opportunity to operate as joint and collaborative leaders.

In order to build capacity for instructional knowledge and delivery, which ultimately will positively affect student achievement, there must be a system in place for ongoing training of effective, standards-based instructional plan- ning, standards-based delivery, and standards-based assessment. In addition, teacher leaders should be trained by a variety of experts, including the prin- cipal, assistant principal, instructional coach, district- or state-level content expert, district- or state-level instructional coordinator, and district- or state- level master teacher.

The teacher leaders must also be provided the opportunity to train teachers within the school day. Trainings must be nonthreatening, collaborative, and data-driven. Teachers should also be given opportunities to provide open and honest feedback on trainings. For instance, summative assessments may indi- cate that teachers need training on differentiated instruction or on deliver- ing best instructional practices to students. The teachers, however, may voice concerns on needing training that focuses on delivering quality, collaborative instruction or on the use of standards-based assessments and standards- based grading practices.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 276 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement

Therefore, in order to build quality consensus, teachers must have a voice in the types of training offered by teacher leaders. Thus, teacher leaders should provide and implement quality training systems that offer a balance for class- room teachers and that answer to the data as well as to the teachers’ requests.

Teacher-led leadership includes the process of teachers analyzing, disaggre- gating, and conversing about students’ achievement, attendance, and disci- pline data. In addition, a part of the data conversation must address cause, or the “why” questions. The “why” questions must be qualitative, substan- tial, and correlated to the ongoing data-collection process. This is a practice that is also not easy to master and may call for training. For instance, if the school-achievement data indicates high literacy and low math scores, it is not enough for teachers and administrators to know this fact. The team must work together to figure out why this is the case and what plan can be collab- oratively created and implemented that speaks to the causes.

For example, a “Needs Improvement” school that may also be involved in restructuring will require the school staff to have a central, daily focus on data collection and data analysis. Due to the status of the school’s progress, focus- ing on student-achievement data is a critical step to increasing student per- formance. Listed below are examples of some of the “why” questions that the school might use to help guide and inform instruction:

• Why are the male students scoring higher than the female students in science?

• Why are the female students not interested in the science curriculum?

• Why are the female students outperforming the male students in reading?

• Why are the majority of the students at performance level 3 in sci- ence male?

• Why are the male students only interested in certain types of writing, such as writing poetry?

• Why are the students that are scoring the lowest on summative and formative assessments also the students who miss the most school days during the course of the school year?

• Why is less than 10 percent of the total school population performing in the highest category of student achievement?

• Why are more of the fiscal resources being used to address the areas of low student performance?

These are examples of the types of questions that must be asked and seriously considered by teachers and administrators to ensure that a school begins to focus and move into a large-scale school-improvement planning and imple- mentation phase.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 277 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement

References DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional

learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Gabriel, J. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi- sion and Curriculum Development.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quar- terly, 30(4), 498–518.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Source: Brown, L. (2008). The case for teacher-led school improvement. Principal, 87(4), 28–32. © 1999–2013 Reprinted with permission. © 2008, National Association of Elementary School Principals. All rights reserved.

Summary The author of this article provides a rationale for distributing leadership beyond the principal’s office: the increasing number of tasks inherent in running a school. She notes that principals who move toward the inclusion of teachers as leaders must believe in collective intelligence and must then determine the extent to which others in the school share that perspective.

Brown offers several specific tasks and responsibilities for teachers as leaders, including training teachers within the school day for “effective standards-based instructional planning, standards- based delivery, and standards-based assessment.” She also describes the need for agreed-upon processes for making decisions and reaching consensus, first within a leadership team and then within the larger faculty.

In Brown’s view, the principal is responsible for creating such an environment among the staff. She refers to the importance of certain leadership qualities or traits that should factor into a selection process for teacher leaders, though she does not provide details on what those traits might be. She writes from a principal’s perspective about the need for collaborative leadership where the focus is on systemic improvement.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Brown’s article addresses issues of leadership in a traditional school building. What are the

implications for shared leadership in an online environment? What elements of Brown’s argument for transformative leadership apply in an online environment?

2. How might principals identify teachers who have leadership potential? 3. How might principals be prepared in graduate course work to succeed as leaders in a col-

laborative decision-making environment rather than a top-down administrative style? 4. What would you do as a school leader if a teacher leader proposed a solution to a problem

that you did not agree with? 5. Brown writes unambiguously about the goal of using shared leadership to improve schools

based on the effective use of standards-based curriculum and clear goals. Are there other, perhaps equally compelling, reasons to share leadership among adults (and students) in a learning environment?

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 278 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development: Do as I (Kind of ) Say, Not as I (Sort of ) Do, by Jason Margolis and Anne Doring

Introduction Margolis and Doring are researchers from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. They con- ducted a qualitative study of six hybrid teacher leaders (HTLs; teachers who both teach K–12 students and lead other teachers) in four school districts who participated in modeling prac- tice for peers as part of their teaching assignments (referred to by the authors as the “studio classroom”).

Their study underscores the challenges of teacher leaders in terms of the support necessary from administration, the trust required from peer teachers, and the structure that must be in place for teachers to learn from a studio-classroom approach to professional development. The authors note that the results of their study suggest a need for additional, more targeted teacher leader- ship studies that investigate specific kinds of leadership among peers, and how such leadership works in real school contexts.

Margolis and Doring reveal the difficulties of direct observation or modeling of practice as a means of learning from peers without a structural mechanism for reflection and, perhaps more importantly, without the encouragement to learn from mistakes and failed lessons. In their study, the authors found that mixed messages from both school administrators and district lead- ers suggested that teachers should learn from this approach, but gave little indication of exactly how that learning would take place. Resistance came from administrators as well as union rep- resentatives for teachers in the case study schools. Clearly, the actual implementation of teacher leadership models challenges the status quo of what it means to be a teacher and how improve- ment and teacher learning can take place within the school day.

Excerpt The following is an excerpt from Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2012). The fundamental dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated professional development: Do as I (kind of ) say, not as I (sort of ) do. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859–882.

Abstract

Purpose: This article focuses on a specific model of teacher leadership in schools—the studio classroom. In answering the call for more targeted stud- ies of teacher leadership, the study is designed to assist educational leaders in putting in place the organizational and social structures that allow teacher leaders to have the most positive impact on teachers. Research questions focused on perceptions, enactment, and impact of the studio classroom. Research Methods: The research took place over a 2-year period (2008– 2010), with six teacher leader-participants from four school districts. Data collection included individual and group interviews and extensive on site

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 279 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

observation, as well as administrator interviews. Analytic procedures were qualitative, grounded in the teacher leadership literature and a sociocul- tural teacher learning framework. Findings and Implications: Across sites, a diminished understanding and appreciation for the teacher learning pro- cess left no sanctioned space to learn from mistakes. Thus, logistical, social, and cultural barriers overwhelmed any studio classroom implementation attempts—and teacher leaders ultimately failed to open up their classroom doors as intended. Practical implications include a need to reexamine the term modeling as exhibiting qualities that encourage reflection on teach- ing rather than replication of teaching. Similarly, to stimulate learning from actual classroom practice, a new vision of teacher leadership needs to focus on improving rather than proving. Additionally, research on teaching will need to more strongly make the case that authentic teacher inquiry more strongly correlates with teacher and student learning than the importation and transmitting of “best practices.”

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, the focal point of educational reform efforts and teacher professional development has shifted from the conceptual to the practical. As decontextualized workshops and sessions were shown to be largely ineffective in changing teacher beliefs and practices (see Lee, 2011; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999), there has been a move- ment toward embedding teacher learning in the actual work of teaching (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Morris & Hiebert, 2011). Under this new conception, professional development is face-to-face, embedded in classroom contexts, and targeted—focusing on the “core of teaching” (Morris & Hiebert, 2011) as is experienced in realistic educational settings.

To further this more classroom-centered professional development, teacher leaders have been increasingly used as coaches, staff developers, and instruc- tional leaders. Research has documented a proliferation of both formal and informal “distributed leadership” in schools (Mayrowetz, Murphy, Louis, & Smylie, 2007; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007) in concert with increas- ing academic demands on students. Yet at the same time, confusion around these emergent roles abound (Goldstein, 2004; Margolis & Huggins, 2012), as teacher leader positions are often created in advance of organizational capac- ity to use them wisely. Thus, although there has been some success in mak- ing teacher leader-facilitated professional development more connected to successful practice, models are less developed in terms of how to make their work practically successful. Relatedly, teacher leaders have long faced ongoing dilemmas related to poorly integrated professional cultures (Kardos, Johnson, Heather, Kaufmann, & Liu, 2001; Lortie, 1975), latent perceptions that team- ing and collaborative work do not improve teaching and learning (Conley, Fauske, & Pounder, 2004), and larger school cultures that emphasize individ- ual teacher “performance” over communal responsibility for student learning (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996).

* * *

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 280 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

The following research questions were explored:

Research Question 1: What aspects of the studio classroom do HTLs enact in schools?

Research Question 2: What supports or hinders impactful modeling by HTLs?

Research Question 3: When studio classrooms are enacted, what impact do they have on teacher learning and the school change process?

Literature Review

In the following sections, we explore terminology and current literature in relation to the studio classroom. First, we define Level 1 and Level 2 modeling and differentiate between the concepts of lesson study and the studio class- room. Next, we explore the benefits of the studio classroom model, and finally, we look at common obstacles that often prevent the implementation of the studio classroom.

Definition of Terms This article defines the studio classroom in relation to an emergent frame- work that examines different levels of teacher leader modeling in schools (see Margolis, 2012). Level 1 modeling involves direct observation of teacher leader teaching-practice with students present. These students may be that of the teacher leader or of a colleague. When Level 1 modeling occurs on a regu- lar basis in a teacher leader’s own classroom, that arena can be considered a “studio” or “lab” classroom. Level 2 modeling includes instances where teacher leaders share openly about their teaching. Specific examples might include the informal or formal sharing—in person or online—of student work, strat- egies, and lesson plans, as well as struggles and triumphs. Students are not present during Level 2 modeling.

* * *

The Benefits of the Studio Classroom The educational research literature contains very few studies in which the studio classroom is explicitly explored. Indirectly, however, some research speaks to the potential benefits. For example, a recent study by Reeves (2009) of more than 300 teachers and administrators found that—of all the possible ways for teacher leaders to influence practice—“direct modeling by colleagues was the most powerful by far” (p. 85). Similarly, a recent study of recipro- cal peer coaching by Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, and Bolhius (2009) confirms the power of direct modeling in encouraging experimentation with alter- native teaching strategies—not only for the observer but the teacher being observed. Their research on professional development in The Netherlands found that “knowing that a colleague will come to observe you in your class- room . . . was reported to prompt the search for alternative teaching meth- ods for experimentation . . . to model new teaching strategies for the coaching

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 281 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

partner” (p. 251). Other research similarly concludes that abstract profes- sional development courses/sessions (see Neuman & Cunningham, 2009) or new curriculum components (see Domitrovich et al., 2009)—without con- current in-house, in-classroom support—fails to deliver the types of changes in teacher learning and practice that often comes with coaching in concrete, naturalistic learning situations where students are present (see also Ander- son & Herr, 2011).

Obstacles to the Studio Classroom Despite the potential benefits of the studio classroom model as inferred in the literature, the practice has remained difficult to actualize. Reeves (2009) explains that “many schools ignore the power of direct modeling by classroom teachers as the key to high-impact professional learning” (p. 85). Although the concept of “existence proofs” to link conceptual knowledge to practical knowledge seems compelling, Reeves offers one possible explanation for the dearth of the modeling/studio classroom practice, claiming that many poten- tial teacher-leaders get stuck on the question, What if my model lessons are not very good? (Reeves, 2009). Thus, it seems that many teacher leaders view the observing and debriefing, which often accompany “studio lessons” as requir- ing perfect practice for later replication rather than as a venue to stimulate discussion of problems of practice to promote teacher learning. This fear is often reinforced by larger economic and political forces that have recently suppressed authentic inquiry into teaching practice in favor of the marketiza- tion of “evidence-based practices” (Anderson & Herr, 2011).

Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural Teacher Learning Models

More than 20 years ago, new theories emerged that looked at teacher learning as being “situated” in social practice, not just in the individual educator’s mind (see, e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather than having concepts be “transmitted” to teachers for hopeful eventual implementation, situated theory sees learn- ing as embodied and, therefore, emerging from action in relation to others (Korthagen, 2010). This model necessitates teacher learning events that are, as Korthagen (2010) concludes, “fruitful practical experiences . . . sufficient, suitable, and realistic” while also being rooted with peers in everyday class- room life (p. 104).

As pointed out by City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009), professions such as medicine have embedded their learning experiences in collaborative prac- tice via “instructional rounds” for some time. Through specified processes and protocols, physicians work together to develop their knowledge of practice, in practice. The educational community, in recent years, has more intentionally borrowed these approaches to connect teacher professional development to “the actual work of teachers and students in classrooms” (p. 157). Oftentimes, these learning events are mediated by peer teacher “coaches” who engage colleagues in what has been called a “local proof route” to teacher learning (Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006), focused on “small trials” where educators with shared problems can “learn from small mistakes rather than large ones” (Morris & Hiebert, 2011, p. 6). Such “job-embedded coaching” is often

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 282 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

designed to build capacity among willing teachers and to create exis- tence proofs that could be used to demonstrate high-quality practice to others . . . [using] local practice and individual learning to foster organizational learning, moving learning processes beyond abstrac- tions into practical activities. (Gallucci, 2008, pp. 555–565)

In addition to concretizing policy and theory of what should happen in what is happening, situated and social teacher learning allows teachers to learn from and with people who can not only say they have worked with students but are still working with students, seeking to improve instruction in actual class- room settings (see also Intrator & Kunzman, 2009).

This sociocultural framework helped us better examine the ways in which the HTLs brought the studio classroom to life (Research Question 1), as well as the obstacles to rooting teacher learning in peer collaborative practice (Research Question 2). Additionally, it provided a helpful lens through which to explore the potential impact of teacher leader “modeling” in naturalistic set- tings (Research Question 3) and whether, overall, a trial-and-error approach to teacher learning could be enhanced by localized HTL studio classroom activities.

Method

In light of the documented gaps between idealized visions of teacher lead- ership and the actual work of teacher leaders within schools, this study’s primary research questions examined studio classroom manifestations and impact, as well as the related supports and obstacles to HTLs. As such, it seeks to answer the call for “close in, fine grained studies” of teacher leadership (Coburn & Russell, 2008, p. 226) by focusing on one specific model of teacher leadership rather than the broad “distributed leadership” category. Our quali- tative inquiry held the primary goal of understanding the beliefs and practices of HTLs and their administrators in relation to the studio classroom across schools and within districts. Participants, as well as data collection and ana- lytic processes, are described below.

Participants Over the 2 years of research, six HTLs were studied across four different school districts in one northwest U.S. state. These districts were selected to provide variety in size and socioeconomic status while also remaining rep- resentative of the larger state population. Selection was initiated by the prin- cipal investigator (PI) contacting school districts where HTLs were being systematically used. Names of potential participants were supplied, and the PI then followed up with the HTLs and their principals to secure participa- tion. Efforts were made to ensure variety in geographic location, the type of HTL, subject area and grade level expertise, and gender. As a result, four female and two male participants were enrolled in the study, which represented the teacher populations within the schools. Year 1 participants were anchored within one school, whereas Year 2 participants had “caseloads” of teachers

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 283 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

across multiple schools within Battleton School District (BSD). Additionally, the Year 1 participants were in a 50% teaching–50% leading split, whereas BSD participants were in a 20% teaching–80% leading arrangement. Despite these differences in role-structure, the analysis highlights patterns of studio classroom enactment that held across the 2 years of the study.

All participants and school districts were given pseudonyms. The three Year 1 HTL participants included Melissa (middle school Language Arts/ Social Studies), Rob (middle school Math); and Karen (high school Language Arts/ Social Studies). The three BSD HTLs spanned middle and high school, and included Sam (Math), Peggy (Social Studies), and Janet (Math). All six par- ticipants had been well-respected teachers within their respective disciplines and applied for the coaching positions when their districts moved toward the teacher leader-coaching model of professional development.

In addition to the six HTLs, four principals, one from each school district, and four district leaders—superintendent, assistant superintendent, executive director of curriculum, and union president—from the district with the three HTLs were included as participants. Inclusion of administrator interviews was designed to balance teacher perceptions, triangulate the data, and main- tain a focus on the relationship between studio classroom activities as they were intended within the organization and how they actually played out in HTL practices.

Data Collection This research took place over a 2-year period, covering the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 school years. In the first year of the study, three HTLs in sepa- rate school districts were each interviewed individually twice, once prior to the beginning of the academic year and once at the end of the academic year. Interviews were semistructured (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and were focused on understanding the HTLs’ perceptions of their roles, including explaining the ways in which they planned to directly connect their own classroom teach- ing to the learning of other teachers (to explore Research Question 2, studio classroom barriers and supports). Additionally, all three HTLs participated in a focus group in March 2009. In addition to interviews, each of the first-year participants were observed throughout the 2008–2009 academic year 10 or 11 times, including two or three observations of their own classroom teach- ing. Typical observations included participation in or facilitation of profes- sional development events, visitations to other classrooms, leadership plan- ning meetings, and teaching events with their own students (to investigate Research Question 1, studio classroom enactment). Additionally, participants were asked to let the researcher know in advance if their upcoming sched- ule included engaging in Level 1 modeling. To understand how leadership viewed the role of the first-year participants, interviews were conducted with all three of the HTLs’ principals. Observations of scheduled studio classroom events and administrator perceptions of their relationship to larger school reform efforts were included to more thoroughly investigate Research Ques- tion 3 (studio classroom impact).

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 284 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

In the second year of the study, three HTLs in one district were each inter- viewed individually twice, once prior to the beginning of the academic year and once at the end of the academic year. Additionally, all three HTLs partici- pated in a focus group in April 2010, and five administrators/district leaders were interviewed throughout the year. In addition to interviews, each of the second-year participants were observed 10 times throughout the 2009–2010 academic year, including two or three classroom observations. Also, in both years of the study, multiple artifacts were collected including HTL calendars, professional development materials, meeting agendas, newspaper articles, classroom assignments, school brochures, and emails. Such document analy- sis helped account for the use of teacher leader time, as well as any discrep- ancies between the theories behind the creation of respective HTL roles and their actual manifestation in practice.

Data Analysis Data analysis occurred both during and after data collection through a con- stant comparative (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) method, aiming to develop, refine, and link codes into categories. First, we developed initial descriptive codes (see Miles & Huberman, 1994) drawn from the literature and theoretical framework. Initial iterative passes through the data focused on the varied types of “modeling” the HTLs engaged in, different actor’s perceptions of the studio classroom, and observed organizational and social barriers and sup- ports for studio classroom enactment.

After data collection was complete, both researchers again individually read and reread the data to find patterns and relationships between organizational plans for the studio classroom and actual enactment by HTLs. As categories became linked, analytic memos (Strauss, 1987) fostered the development of larger themes. Throughout data analysis, frequent meetings occurred between both researchers to discuss the emerging patterns. Eventually, codetermined themes were named and are presented in the Findings section.

Limitations of Study A limitation of this study involved one of the initial foci of the research—the tangible synergy between the HTL’s roles as “teacher” and “leader.” This syn- ergy was less prevalent than planned, and therefore harder to document and analyze. One possible reason for this limitation was that the PI visited each HTL on 10 or 11 occasions, as it was not possible to visit all six HTLs every day throughout the school year. Although a good deal of field data were col- lected during these visits, it is highly plausible that additional valuable data were missed during the days when no observational field notes were taken. An additional reason for this shortcoming in the research process is that teacher-leader synergy existed much less than administrators and the HTLs themselves initially expected. Although this limitation made it more difficult to examine Research Question 1 and Research Question 3 (enactment and impact of studio classroom activities), it also allowed for deeper exploration of Research Question 2 (barriers to the studio classroom, and potential sup- ports needed to facilitate its success).

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 285 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Findings

In this section, we present this study’s findings related to perception and implementation of the studio classroom. We first look at administrators’ hopes and concerns about implementing studio classrooms, as well as the mixed and diluted messages they sent. Next, we contrast these findings to teachers’ largely positive reactions to the studio classroom concept. We then look at barriers that prevented HTLs from fully implementing the studio classroom, including HTLs objections to using their own classrooms as models and fears of creating collegial dependency. Finally, we look at structural and cultural barriers that prevented the studio classroom model from being used on a regular basis, which included lack of administrative direction, scheduling and funding issues, as well as pervasive fear of and resistance to “observations.”

* * *

Show Me the Way: Teachers and the Studio Classroom In contrast to administrators, teachers across the sites were quite clear regarding how they felt about studio classroom activities: (a) they liked hav- ing approaches modeled for them and (b) they did not like being visited themselves.

There are repeated instances in the 2 years of field notes data of teachers expressing that “seeing other professionals in action” helped them to bet- ter understand both the “why” and “how” of school wide reform goals. For example, one school was working on using “powerful teaching and learning methods” via a list of indicators. After a “learning walk” to another teacher’s classroom with Karen, one visiting teacher commented, “I knew we did it, but now I see why . . . it helps to understand the indicators.” It is important to note, however, that this was not a studio classroom visit to an HTL’s classroom but a guided tour given by Karen.

Similarly, in an early year one-on-one coaching session, Melissa expressed the hopeful idea that “we can use each other’s classes as labs.” The teacher, how- ever, pushed for Melissa to guest teach in his class—mentioning twice that it was the guest teaching in his classroom that he found to be the most helpful form of professional development the previous year. In another example, Sam was facilitating an after-school professional development session for teachers on new interactive math technologies. Here again, the teachers pressed for some version of the studio classroom to enhance their learning of this new approach, with one commenting, “It just helps to see it done with a real class.” Although Sam made a general comment that anyone was welcome to watch him teach at any time—a common refrain across the sites—specific invita- tions never followed.

The dynamics in these interactions indicates a desire from teachers to see new approaches modeled in order to integrate them more deeply into their teaching schemata. Yet at the same time, many of these same teachers avoided being visited by the HTLs and other teachers. The HTLs, similarly, preferred to visit other classrooms rather than being visited—for reasons explored in the next section.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 286 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

HTL Barriers to the Studio Classroom HTLs across the sites spoke about Level 1 studio classroom modeling as something that could and possibly should occur but only after certain condi- tions were met. Primarily, these conditions related to collegial dispositions toward the role of the HTL. For example, Melissa explained why she believed Level 1 modeling was neither the best approach nor use of teacher time. She claimed that it made some teachers too dependent on her, referencing one particular colleague who “just wanted her to come back and [teach his class] again and again.” Melissa was also concerned about guest teaching in other classes with the focus being solely on “instruction” and not relationships, add- ing that “those kids don’t know me.” As for having other teachers visiting her classroom via the studio model, she said that most teachers didn’t feel it was worth the time because

there is a sense that if the [coach] is in the building, and I can get some materials, I can just figure it out. This happens even when it has been mandated to see others teach and there is really positive feedback about it. It’s because there’s also really negative feedback about time and timing and logistics. I have seen a few teachers come in here [to my class] and see something, but they drop it at the transfer. They just want the materials to get it done.

These concerns that studio classroom teaching events would create depen- dency among teachers and yield only superficial teacher learning were com- mon among the HTLs. They believed, as Melissa expressed, that although an observed lesson might provide other teachers with an activity or teach- ing idea, it did not lead to any deep change in teacher thinking. Rob similarly expressed concern about both the motives behind teachers’ desires for the studio classroom as well as its impact:

They get in this kind of mode where I need to help them. They get stuck, and it’s like: rescue, rescue, rescue . . . they are looking for help, but I am not sure my definition of help is their definition. Last year, they wanted me to deal with everything, give them a worksheet, tell them this is their math program. I want them to start thinking about how to teach math.

Here, Rob differentiates between a more prescriptive version of “help” that teachers might glean from watching him teach and the transformation in math instruction that he sought. He, like most of the HTLs, thought that at some point studio classrooms would be more appropriate, adding that “once we get other pieces in place . . . books, standards, curriculum . . . then we can do some of that other stuff—going into other people’s classrooms.” Similarly, Melissa believed that because the teachers had not identified a focused need, “I don’t think we’re at that point yet” where teachers would see it being worth their time. Across the sites, there was a general sense from the HTLs that teachers were not ready for the studio classroom.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 287 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Thus, there existed a clear dissonance between observed teachers’ expecta- tions and hopes for studio classroom activities from the HTLs and what the HTLs themselves believed was appropriate to advance professional develop- ment in their buildings. Although the teachers seemed to be asking for con- crete examples of reforms-in-action, the HTLs perceived a lack of systemic readiness to facilitate teacher learning through the studio model.

HTLs in their own classroom. One additional HTL impediment to manifestation of the studio classroom was evident across the sites—the HTLs’ own teach- ing. Each of the HTLs was observed teaching in their own classroom two or three times. In almost every instance, their lessons were typical of those you might see in any K–12 classrooms—filled with high points, low points, and occasionally some difficulties engaging students. Sometimes, they struggled with exactly the same reform implementation in which they were seeking to engage their colleagues.

In one illustrative example, Peggy explained how her district was rolling out new initiatives related to differentiated instruction and building students’ academic vocabulary. At an observed leadership workshop day for all teacher leaders and principals, the entire school was discussing the book The Differ- entiated School to learn how to better meet the needs of the district’s increas- ingly diverse learners. Days later, Peggy was observed teaching an 8th grade Social Studies lesson focused on academic vocabulary connected to “politi- cal parties” and “planks.” The lesson was designed to include a role play for students to think about which party they would choose as they were offered more and more items. Through much of the lesson, students did not listen to her directions nor did they focus on the task at hand. Clearly frustrated, Peggy threatened the students with “going back and just reading the book” if they did not cooperate. After the lesson, she ascribed some of the lessons’ shortcomings to the fact that one of the students in the room had Asperger’s syndrome.

The above is not a teacher-bashing anecdote. In fact, the observational data have several examples of HTLs directly addressing the researcher after a classroom observation to “explain” why a lesson did not go well—sometimes attributing it to particular kids, other times to their leadership positions, which made it more difficult to plan. What is important to note here is that in no case did an HTL see their own classroom—including struggles with their own teaching—as fodder for productive coaching discussions about the lived curriculum and how to make the larger reform efforts more viable. Instead, fear of judgments from visitors—whether the researcher or another teacher—led them to explain away rather than explore the difficulties of teaching. In the right environment and with the right supports, the teaching episode above could have been used as a centerpiece for a discussion of what makes teaching academic vocabulary through differentiated instruction chal- lenging and how to do it better next time. Instead, it was quickly brushed aside—and with some degree of shame.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 288 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Structural Barriers to the Studio Classroom As indicated earlier, a number of structural issues also impeded the HTLs enacting the studio classroom. Lack of direction from administrators on expectations related to the focus and frequency of teacher leader modeling was one major obstacle. As Melissa commented, there would need to be a “clearly identified need” in order to make the “minutes, expectations, reflec- tions, and time” of a true studio classroom palpably worth it for teachers. However, these larger structures were never set in place. Even when visiting other teacher’s classrooms was an administrative expectation, neither sup- ports nor consequences were put in place to give the prospect any teeth.

Additional structural barriers included lack of compatibility of schedules for HTLs and the teachers with whom they worked. Karen noted that “the fewer classes I teach, the fewer opportunities for people to observe me teaching.” One additional structural barrier was funding, and the need to “cover” teach- ers’ classes so that they could observe Level 1 modeling.

A final but notable lack of structure became clear in the five examples of when a studio classroom event did occur: a lack of protocols to encourage learning from the teaching event. In one example, Melissa’s classroom was visited by a coach from another school to see how the “transition model” for special education students was working. When the visitor was asked what she was looking for during the observation, she said, “Nothing specific.” Dur- ing the debrief of the lesson, Melissa asked the visiting coach if she had any questions, and the conversation meandered around general classroom and teaching issues for approximately 15 minutes. When Melissa pressed for more specific feedback, the visitor replied, “Nothing to say, it was great to see. . . . The kids are fun.”

In another example of lack of structured protocols, Rob modeled two lessons in two different teachers’ classrooms over the course of the year. During each lesson, Rob provided specific examples of pedagogical approaches targeted to the areas in which the teachers wanted to improve and gain more exper- tise. Yet in neither lesson was the teacher in a physical or mental position of learning. Instead of taking notes, observing, and asking questions about con- tent and pedagogy, these teachers coached individual students on the tasks. There was no specific protocol for how these teachers were to get the most out of Rob’s Level 1 modeling and, for one period, to not teach but learn about teaching. In the absence of this structure for observing-to-learn, they did not appear to use the time to expand their teaching repertoire. For the most part, they watched and worked with particular students, with one even leaving the room for several minutes to help a student begin a separate project discon- nected from Rob’s studio lesson.

Overall, there was little to no impact on larger school reform efforts or indi- vidual teacher learning when the HTLs did manage to enact some aspect of the studio classroom through Level 1 modeling. This appeared to be related to the fact that there was no process in place to link observations of HTL teaching

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 289 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

to specified improvement goals through targeted description, analysis, and reflection by the observer(s).

School-Cultural Barriers to the Studio Classroom HTLs not only faced structural hindrances but also obstacles imbedded within the culture of teaching. For example, across all sites, the HTLs were quite explicit that the word “observe” was never to be used in conjunction with classroom visitations. Peggy specifically said the word “observe” was “a dirty word.” Additionally, according to Sam and Janet, the evaluative conno- tations connected with classroom “observations” were reported to bring up “union issues” at several of the sites and violated the privacy that some teach- ers valued. In some instances, the situation was so severe that individual BSD HTLs decided to abandon any attempts to engage in classroom intervisita- tions. Janet said she decided she would wait until she was explicitly asked to do so by administrators to avoid being the object of a union grievance, and Sam explained how he had begun to do most of his coaching over e-mail. Sam’s engaging in primarily virtual Level 2 modeling symbolized a phenom- enon that occurred across all six HTL participants—a gradual drift away from the situated, classroom-based professional development activities that were originally envisioned as integral to their roles.

In addition to the valuing of privacy, HTLs also faced teachers’ fear of judgment that they described as being very much a part of the culture of teaching— particularly in these politically charged times when “teacher quality” is under a microscope. Rob explained how the phenomenon of teacher insecurity affected his attempts to arrange intervisitations:

There’s a lot of insecurity in teaching—to put it out there in front of other adults, man, this is tough. I see less problems with the younger teachers, most of them are willing. The older teachers, some of them are comfortable and don’t care, and some are a little reluctant. It could be me—maybe they just don’t know me that well.

Rob would add a few weeks later that he understood why teachers would delay responding to requests for intervisitations, as they perceive no direct benefit because “the mindset” is just not there. Often, he said, the “best way in” was to “just go ahead and [teach their class] himself.” This served as another example of how long-held sociocultural practices within the profession nega- tively affected the social learning that was ideally supposed to flow from HTL positions.

Discussion

Across all sites and participants, there were three consistent and related bar- riers to enacting the studio classroom: (a) a covert and sometimes overt mes- sage that lessons were not for teachers to learn from but needed to “work” for students, (b) a lack of focus on an agreed-on “learning goal” for teachers within a district or school, and (c) a lack of trust among teachers, making them uncomfortable with classroom visitations. The common thread among these

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 290 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

barriers is a diminished understanding and appreciation for the (teacher) learning process, despite extensive research documenting that learning from mistakes and missteps is fundamental to transforming beliefs and practices. As Jensen (2005) explains, there are “two simple truths about the brain: (1) the brain rarely gets it right the first time, and (2) making mistakes is key to developing intelligence” (p. 52). Yet the rabid emphasis on ensuring that students’ brains were experiencing “best practices” to pass state exams had the countereffect of reducing opportunities for teachers to expand their peda- gogical intelligence.

The pervasive collective lack of appreciation for learning from mistakes led to situations where logistical, social, and cultural barriers overwhelmed any studio classroom implementation attempts. This occurred even though many in the respective systems praised the abstract concept of studio lessons to promote teacher learning. In practice, this led to a passing of the observation buck. The HTLs were willing to visit other teachers but much less willing to be visited. Teachers wanted to watch the HTLs teach but not to be observed themselves. Meanwhile, administrators sent out mixed and diluted messages about the extent to which they expected professional learning to be rooted in classrooms.

Further complicating any attempts for teachers to learn from practice in class- rooms were diffused reform efforts. Each of the districts in this study was engaged in multiple, sometimes contradictory, initiatives. In terms of what teachers were supposed to learn in a studio classroom, administrators could not provide a focus, or provided too many foci. As several of the HTLs indi- cated, it was difficult to know what should be “modeled” or “observed” when district and school goals were unclear and sometimes convoluted. To make teacher learning “concrete” became nearly impossible within ambiguous sys- temic goals.

In sum, the structural barriers (e.g., lack of time, money, as well as protocols and focus) facilitated the maintenance of school-cultural barriers (e.g., fear, distrust, and privacy) long-held within the teaching profession. Although it made sense hypothetically that an educator who was both teaching and lead- ing teachers would link the two endeavors via some version of the studio classroom, the HTLs opened up their classroom doors no more than their col- leagues. With little authority to institute the studio classroom, and a perva- sive insecurity in both their own teaching and relationships with colleagues, the HTLs ultimately reverted back to traditional norms of teacher privacy and isolation—ironically, the norms their positions were initially designed to break down.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Clearly, the closed-door culture of teaching will not go gently into that good night. To counteract this, as this study indicates, a reexamining of the term modeling needs to take place. The word “model” typically infers exhibiting qualities for replication by the observers. However, what is needed to promote teacher learning of new concepts and approaches is a redefining of teacher

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 291 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

modeling as exhibiting qualities that encourage reflection on teaching rather than replication of teaching. This would require an acknowledgment that any lesson is to some degree an experiment; and that even a “best practice” will require much fine-tuning when manifested with particular students on a par- ticular day in a particular classroom (see Margolis, 2010).

Similarly, for teacher leaders, the message needs to be sent that leadership is in the learning, not in the perfection. As Anderson and Herr (2011) insightfully explain, the importing of “best” or “evidenced-based” practices to classrooms is valuable only to the exporters who profit from these materials (e.g., pub- lishing and testing companies) and disregards decades of scholarship on the importance of authentic teacher inquiry (see Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). HTLs and other teacher leaders may be more willing to tackle structural and cultural obstacles to the studio classroom if there is a clear systemic message that the “model” is the one who learns the most from their teaching. In disman- tling the search for the holy grail of the “perfect lesson,” a new vision of leader- ship can emerge where the teacher leader is the best teacher learner—the one who revises and improves their own teaching the most, as well as the one who provides the most appropriate feedback to others so they can learn from mis- steps. To aid in creating these types of environments, administrators would need to model the process of learning from mistakes themselves, making pub- lic their own thinking as they navigate through complex educational dilemmas.

To assist in this redefining of school leadership to improve teacher learning, we can draw from emergent theories on how to improve K–12 student learning. One of the strategies suggested by several authors (see Jensen, 2005; Schoenbach, Greenleaf, Cziko, & Hurwitz, 1999) is to reward awareness of struggles—the more honest and thorough, the better. Extending this theory to teacher profes- sional development around the implementation of curricular and pedagogi- cal reforms would be an important and essential first step in re-acculturating teaching. It would mean using data to improve rather prove (Charalambous & Silver, 2008; Nelson, Slavit, & Deuel, 2012), drawing from classroom obser- vations to learn rather than evaluate, and rewarding teachers for reflection rather than perfection. Specific strategies might include (a) designating tar- geted rewards for teachers who thoughtfully identify areas of struggle during specific lesson observations as well as annual reviews, (b) developing addi- tional rewards structures for teachers who demonstrate action (e.g., research and professional development leading to revised lessons and curricula) as a result of thoughtful reflection on areas needing improving, and (c) associating career ladder opportunities (e.g., teacher leader-coaching positions) with the desired qualifications of demonstrating the following: a record of connecting reflection on teaching to the improvement of teaching and learning, an open- ness to classroom intervisitations and Level 1 modeling, and a capacity to con- nect individual teaching enhancements to larger school improvement goals.

Some of the new national standards for preservice teachers to achieve cer- tification (see Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium, 2011) do call on teacher candidates to speak to where they would make adjustments based on documented learning events with students. The National Board for

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 292 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Professional Teaching Standards (2011) similarly asks in-service candidates to speak to needed improvements in order to articulate their excellence. Yet in both of these high-profile teacher portfolios, the focus on improvement is subsidiary to an emphasis on proving impact on student learning. Moreover, these performance-based efforts are often overrun by larger forces in a con- temporary political climate that places teaching under a microscope for judg- ment based primarily on student test scores.

Ultimately, this study neither refutes nor confirms prior research on the importance of teachers and teacher leaders owning curricular reforms through opportunities for structured practice and reflection. It does, however, illuminate the complicated web of factors that hinder classroom-centered professional development and provides some helpful guideposts for those who want to bring the studio classroom to life. To assist in making Level 1 modeling more widely accepted, research on teaching will need to more strongly make the case that documenting and analyzing mistakes (as well as successes) more strongly correlates with teacher and student learning than the importation and transmitting of “best practices.” In so doing, future stud- ies might then seize more opportunities to document the impact of Level 1 modeling and the studio classroom on professional development and larger school reform efforts. This evidence might, at last, help create the social con- ditions within which teacher leaders can successfully work with colleagues to better connect what is ideally “said” in schools with the realities of what is “done” in classrooms.

References Anderson, G., & Herr, K. (2011). Scaling up “evidenced-based” practices for teachers is a profit-

able but discredited paradigm. Educational Research, 40, 287–289.

Charalambous, C., & Silver, E. (2008, January). Shifting from proving to improving: Using assess- ment as an integral part of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Tulsa, OK.

City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Coburn, C., & Russell, J. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next gen- eration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Conley, S., Fauske, J., & Pounder, D. (2004). Teacher work group effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 663–703.

Domitrovich, C., Gest, S., Sukhdeep, G., Bierman, K., Welsh, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering high-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professional development support: The Head Start REDI Program. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 567–597.

Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114, 541–581.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 293 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Goldstein, J. (2004). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 173–197.

Intrator, S., & Kunzman, R. (2009). Grounded: Practicing what we preach. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 512–519.

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kardos, M., Johnson, S., Heather, G., Kaufmann, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 250–290.

Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 98–106.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, I. (2011). Teachers as presenters at continuing professional development seminars in the English-as-a-foreign-language context: I find it more convincing. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 30–42.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–14.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–789.

Margolis, J. (2010, June 22). Why teacher quality is a local issue (and why race to the top is a misguided flop). Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/ content.asp?contentid=16023

Margolis, J. (2012). Hybrid teacher leaders and the new professional development ecology. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 291–315.

Margolis, J., & Huggins, K. (2012). Distributed, but undefined: New teacher leader roles to change schools. Journal of School Leadership 22(5), 95–98.

Mayrowetz., D., Murphy, J., Louis, K., & Smylie, M. (2007). Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 69–101.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morris, A., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products: An alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 5–14.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2011). Retrieved from http://www .nbpts.org

Nelson, T., Slavit, D., & Deuel, A. (2012). Two dimensions of an inquiry stance toward student learning data. Teachers College Record, 114(8). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord .org/Content.asp?ContentId=16532

Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coach- ing on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566.

Reeves, D. (2009). Model teachers. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 85–86.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 294 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-facilitated Professional Development

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J., Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103–125.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium. (2011). TPAC assessment: Elementary literacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

Zwart, R., Wubbles, T., Bergen, R., & Bolhius, S. (2009). What characteristics of a reciprocal peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by teachers and their students? Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 243–257.

Source: Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2012). The fundamental dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated professional development: Do as I (kind of ) say, not as I (sort of ) do. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859–882. SAGE, Inc. © 2012, University Council for Educational Administration.

Summary The article by Margolis and Doring represents research at the school and district level focused on perceptions of adults who are trying to lead change in education. Their work also raises important issues of why such change at the practice level among teachers is difficult to achieve. The studio classroom structure offers teachers an opportunity to observe HTLs, which is a poten- tially viable means to observe innovative and presumably more effective ways to teach. However, such modeling with real students in classrooms also incorporates the possibility that lessons will not be ideal and that the practice will not be perfect.

Margolis and Doring suggest that these episodes are valuable if teachers, administrators, and HTLs can view reflection on practice as equally beneficial as viewing highly successful lessons. The authors note that in these four districts, there were no protocols for the application of les- sons learned from model classrooms, nor were there clear learning goals for teachers. In the end, teachers who participated did not exhibit trust in the process. They explain, “Clearly, the closed- door culture will not go gently into that good night.”

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Margolis and Doring assert that new approaches to leading teachers toward instructional

change involve more reflection on teaching rather than replication of teaching. They also described the lack of protocols for such a reflective practice in the teacher leadership approach that was the focus for their research. Such reflection should not be evaluative but should rather reward documentation coupled with reflection. Design the steps in a protocol for conversation after a model lesson taught by an HTL and observed by a teacher peer. Then design the follow-up steps after a parallel lesson taught by the teacher mentee and observed by the HTL.

2. The researchers write, “Clearly, the closed-door culture of teaching will not go gently into that good night.” Discuss that comment and weigh its truth in your experience. Then, pro- pose two or three innovations that may help schools overcome this challenge.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 295 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

3. The closed-door culture of teaching has new meaning in the context of online courses. Can or does a studio classroom work in online teaching among teacher leaders and peer teach- ers? If so, how?

4. This research study underscores the importance of context and social norms that affect leadership and changes in roles in schools. Discuss how issues such as poor standardized test performance, percentage of students qualified for free and reduced lunch, and teacher- quality indicators affect the success of leaders, specifically teachers leaders, in schools.

5. The studio classroom approach is intended to influence change—one classroom and one teacher at a time. It does not seem to be geared toward large-scale reform of school, pro- grams, or districts. If you were part of a reform initiative at those larger levels, would you incorporate studio classrooms? If so, how would you ensure that classroom-based work had an impact for the larger program or school? If not, why not?

6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm, by Andy Hargreaves

Introduction Andy Hargreaves is the Thomas More Brennan Chair in Education at Boston College’s Lynch School of Education. He has written or edited more than 25 books. He wrote the following article for the journal Independent School whose target audience is independent school administra- tors and teachers.

This article offers an optimistic account of educational leadership today. Hargreaves notes that leadership is more “evolved” and emphasizes the role of collaboration in leading schools, which accounts for more positive changes. Hargreaves also credits the inclusion of more women in leadership roles with bringing new insights. Because women typically come from the field of curriculum and instruction, he writes, they bring teaching and learning priorities to leadership.

Hargreaves asserts that a new vision of leadership must be sustainable if the culture of schools is to improve. Sustainable leadership refers to how leaders and their initiatives affect others; sus- tainable leadership is about social justice. He offers seven principles for sustainable leadership that include attention to the creation and preservation of sustained learning, success over time, sustaining people around the leader in a school, and sustaining the self of the leader. Hargreaves claims that the principles of sustainable leadership can be applied in all educational settings.

Excerpt The following is an excerpt from Hargreaves, A. (2005). Sustainable leadership and social jus- tice: A new paradigm. Independent School, 64(2), 16–24.

I grew up in a working class community in the rigid social class system in England in the mid-20th century. In such a setting, you quickly learn that, in your community’s experience, leaders are more often part of the problem than they are part of the solution. In World War I, it was political leadership that sent my grandfather, along with half of my town, to the slaughterhouse of the Somme, only to find, on his return half deaf and with one lung, that he was

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 296 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

barred from collecting his disability pension because he could not travel the five miles back and forth each day to collect it.

Business leadership fired my mother from her first factory job, when she had asked to be reassigned from her task—using pliers to twist the coils of springs on the ends of looms—because her bleeding palms could no longer hold the pliers. And when she went to search for a new job, her boss actually informed the Labor Exchange ahead of time that she’d been fired for insubordination. She prayed every night that the factory would burn down and, although this was probably a questionable use of prayer, one month later, it did.

Educational leadership when I was growing up was not much better. It was the kind of leadership that Joseph and Jo Blase, in their book, Breaking the Silence, characterized as being practiced by authoritarian, even wounding, principals. It was rational, linear, hierarchical, secretive, and controlling. It was leadership too often lacking in mission, and almost always leadership bereft of passion. This was a world of “power over” rather than “power with,” of transactional rather than transformational leadership.

It’s not surprising, then, that I was part of a generation that questioned authority on all levels—and it was only later, as members of our generation came into leadership positions ourselves, that we began to think about ways to truly improve things. Still, it has been a slow evolution. In the early years, we certainly had a sense of social mission. We cared about social justice, about civil rights, women’s liberation, the end of nuclear proliferation. But we often pursued this with irreverence and, sometimes, even irresponsibility.

While I can’t speak to political and business leadership today, I’m happy to see that, when it comes to educational leadership, things have changed over the past 30 years, and are continuing to change for the better.

For one, there are more women leading schools today. In many cases, women brought to their work a more explicitly caring and collaborative ethic. They also brought a different kind of educational background and orientation. Unlike many of their male predecessors, the new women leaders have moved increasingly from curriculum and instructional backgrounds. Instructional leadership was not something they had to learn afresh, but something that was already in their bones, waiting to be fleshed out more fully when they moved into administration. This generation of women has brought caring and learning to the forefront of the leadership world.

We’ve also seen the rise of collaboration in schools. In the past, the domi- nant feature of this community was a culture of individualism, where teach- ers worked largely alone, in isolation, separate from their colleagues. They didn’t learn from their colleagues; they did not acquire expertise about how to improve; and they did not get moral support when they were going through the early, difficult stages of change. But we learned in the late 20th century that when teachers worked in more collaborative cultures—what are now called professional learning communities—they had the support of their col- leagues, they learned from one another. This has not only made teaching a

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 297 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

more inspiring job, it has also made teachers more effective in terms of the impact they have on their students.

Subsequent research has shown that, if the culture of teaching was one of the crucial things that affected the quality of student learning, one of the most significant impacts on the culture of teaching was the character of leadership, and particularly of principalship (or headship) within the school.

What we are seeing now is the importance of a higher, more evolved vision of leadership—what we call sustainable leadership. This is not the leadership of heroes, the leadership of charismatic individuals, the leadership that comes and goes, that rises and falls. It is leadership that spreads across people over long periods of time, and spreads from one school, one place, to another, so it benefits many schools and many children, not just a few schools that are bright exceptions in odd or eccentric places.

Most people who write about sustainability in education write about it in a somewhat trivialized way. They equate sustainability with maintainability, with the capacity to keep things going. I want to attune it more to the ecologi- cal origins of the concept, so that we see sustainability as a spatial as well as a time-based issue.

As Dean Fink, an associate of the International Centre for Educational Change at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and I have defined it, sustain- able leadership means not simply whether something can last, but how par- ticular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future. Sustainable leadership means how your leadership affects other people around you. Sus- tainable leadership is therefore fundamentally not just about keeping things going, but also about social justice, about your impact on other people, whom your actions affect over time.

We have developed seven principles of sustainable leadership that speak to us from the environmental as well as responsible corporate development litera- ture. While they are designed with public school leadership in mind, it’s clear they have applicability to all schools, public and private.

Sustainable Leadership Creates and Preserves Sustained Learning

Sustainable leadership is first and foremost about leadership for learning in the deepest sense. It’s leadership that fully understands the nature of student learning, that engages directly with learning and teaching in classrooms, and that promotes learning among other adults to find the best ways to help the learning of students. Sustainable leadership, in this sense, captures, develops, and retains deep pools of leaders of learning.

Sustainable Leadership Secures Enduring Success Over Time

Sustainable improvements continue year upon year, from one year to the next. They are not fleeting changes that depend on exemplary leaders’ efforts and

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 298 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

that disappear when the leaders have gone. Sustainable leadership spreads beyond individuals in chains of influence that connect the actions of leaders to the ones who went before and the ones who will take up their legacy. Sustain- able leadership makes leadership succession central to the process of con- tinuous improvement.

Quick-fix changes to turn around schools in trouble are the antithesis of sus- tainable leadership. They often exhaust the teachers or the principal, so the improvement efforts can’t be sustained over time. The success of principals in such schools may lead to their promotions or their movements to other schools that need them, resulting in regression among the teachers who feel abandoned by their leader or relieved when the pressure is off.

Sustainable improvement, therefore, has to be measured over many years. For individual principals themselves, leadership succession challenges them to think about who they succeeded, what were their achievements, what busi- ness they left unfinished, where they fell short. It is a challenge of deciding what to continue, what to change, of recognizing the legacies that have to be honored and the work that has yet to be done.

Leadership succession challenges individual leaders to consider how the improvements they guided, or will initiate, will live on after their promotion and retirement. There is a dark corner of the soul in most leaders that secretly wants their own brilliance never to be surpassed, that hopes their successors will be a little less excellent, a little less loved, a little less brilliant than them- selves. The Emperor Caligula killed half his children. Saturn ate his offspring. Governments have been known to spend all the surplus to spoil things for the next government that comes in. These are the most pathological cases of poor leadership succession.

Moral leadership doesn’t deny the feelings of wanting to be better than any successor. Instead, it rises above these feelings for the good of others.

Etienne Wenger, in Communities of Practice, talks about two kinds of fast- paced knowledge—inbound knowledge and outbound knowledge—that leaders possess at times of succession. Wenger says that individual leaders and the people who appoint them are obsessed with inbound knowledge, the knowledge that you need to fix something, change it, turn it around, place your stamp on it. Almost no one pays any attention to outbound knowledge, the knowledge you need to keep something going, improve on it, build on what’s gone before, leave a legacy when you’re done.

Independent schools have more opportunity than most to groom their suc- cessors. Some schools even keep this within the family, though it’s important to ensure that the perpetuation of longstanding traditions and values doesn’t eclipse getting hold of the best expertise. In independent schools, it would make a lot of sense for all school improvement plans to incorporate clear suc- cession plans.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 299 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

Sustainable Leadership Must Depend Not Just on Grooming Individual Successors, but Also on Sustaining People Around the Leader

Leadership succession, in this sense, is about distributed leadership, about how you spread leadership to other people. Outstanding leadership isn’t just dependent on individuals. In a complex, fast-paced world, leadership cannot rest on the shoulders of the few.

No one leader, no one institution, no one nation can micromanage or control everything it believes to be in its power without help from other people around it. The burden is too great. In Witi Ihimaera’s magnificent novel, Whale Rider, about an adolescent Maori girl who becomes the unexpected daughter— rather than the anticipated, chosen son—who will lead her people out of the darkness, she gathers her people together to turn beached whales back into the ocean, challenging her patriarchal elders to understand that lone leaders cannot do it all by themselves.

In highly complex, knowledge-based organizations, we need everyone’s intel- ligence to help the school to flex, respond, regroup, and retool in the face of unpredictable and sometimes overwhelming demands. If we lock intelligence up in the individual leader, this creates inflexibility and increases the likeli- hood of mistakes and errors. But when we draw on what Brown and Lauder call “collective intelligence” that’s infinite rather than fixed, multiple rather than singular, and belongs to everyone not just a few, then the capacity for learning and improvement is magnified many times over.

This is the power of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership, unlike delegated leadership, creates an environment where other people have the power, initiative, motivation, and capacity to initiate acts of leadership them- selves. It is about empowering to teachers, students, parents, and all other groups connected with the school so that improvement is a genuinely-shared responsibility.

Sustainable Leadership Is Thrifty Without Being Cheap

There is no point investing large amounts of resources in a pilot program and then seeing the initiative disappear when the pilot-project resources have gone. There is no point developing No Child Left Behind legislation according to one budget, and then implementing it on a seriously reduced budget over time. Sustainable expenditure is exemplified in spending on skill development that lasts once the resources disappear. Sustainable expenditure is also seen in buying people time to create a collaborative culture that will continue even when the amount of time decreases, once the resources have gone. In short, sustainable leadership develops improvements that can be achieved within existing or achievable resources.

Independent schools, generally speaking, have greater resources than pub- lic schools. But the principle still applies. Overextending a budget to achieve

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 300 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

short-term desires can hurt a school in the long-run. With independent schools, there is also the concern of driving up the price of an independent school edu- cation so that it excludes the middle class. If the goal of true diversity—class as well as race—matters to a school, sustainable leadership requires the sort of fiscal controls that allow this to happen.

Sustainable Leadership Is About Systems Thinking and Social Justice

In a study of eight schools I have been conducting with a group of colleagues, we have seen how schools are affected by the schools around them. When a charismatic leader left one school and took his best staff with him, not only did the leader go, but key teacher leaders went with him.

A second example from our research concerns three schools in a northern Rust Belt city that are all connected to each other. One of them is a magnet school, created in the I980s to stop white and bright flight out to the suburbs. This magnet school has done very well. The school next door, though, which used to be the jewel of the district, now calls itself the special education mag- net, because all its best students have been creamed off to the magnet school. Many students from a poor school on the other side of town have been trans- ferred to this second school. The school is no longer attached to its commu- nity because it now has to take poor students from many different areas. What occurs in the magnet school or charter school affects the other schools around it. You cannot pursue improvement in one school without thinking about the implications, in terms of social justice, for the other schools around it. This is a systems-thinking question, and also a moral question that all leaders have to ask about their practice.

The applicability to independent schools is different—but the principle is the same. Schools need to see themselves in light of the greater good—indeed, the broader public purpose of precollegiate education. For independent schools, it’s looking at the ways they connect with and serve the culture and wider community that allows for their existence. The moral life of schools runs par- allel to the academic life of schools.

Sustainable Leadership Must Sustain the Self

One of the most powerful resources we have is not financial, but human. It is the capacity and the power of our people. A number of truly heroic and coura- geous leaders are achieving phenomenal success in their schools, but often at enormous cost to their own health, to their own well-being, to their families, and their sanity.

Among four of the most successful leaders we have seen in the eight schools we have studied, one has moved up into the superintendency, two have retired early and gone into consultancy or to do a doctorate, and one went into the hospital. Four outstanding principals who are no longer principals. We want a lot from principals and school heads—courage, character, and

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 301 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New Paradigm

commitment—but we must not and cannot demand so much of them that it drains the key resource we have: the emotional health and integrity of those individuals themselves. Sustainable leadership must be about sustaining the intellectual and emotional lives of leaders themselves so they can carry their work and maintain their impact over long periods of time, and not just through short periods of heroic effort. Sharing responsibility, taking time out for reflection, investing in one’s own professional learning—all these things replenish the spirit and the soul of leaders.

Sustainable Leadership Develops Environmental Diversity and Capacity

A sustainable school that develops deep learning where teachers share their best practices among each other, and learn from evidence from the outside, is one that promotes substantial diversity, in different forms of excellence that can then be shared with one another.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were more than 70 species of pear in Australia. Now, because of over-specialization and over-standardization, there are just two. Any bug, any blight, anything that comes in now destroys not just one pear out of 70 but half of the pear population. Standardization makes us vulnerable to predators, bad decisions, misguided acts. It reduces the capacity of one species, person, or expert to learn from others over time. Standardization of any kind is the enemy of healthy diversity and of funda- mental sustainability.

The current educational reform environment is inflicting serious damage on the school principalship. Our evidence shows it is turning leaders into manag- ers. It is detaching good administrators from their staffs. Leaders are aban- doning sustainable improvement so they can manage the imperatives of epi- sodic and repetitive change.

All this makes our current era a very difficult one in which to be an educa- tional leader—to fight for the sort of sustainable leadership that protects deep learning in schools, sustains teachers to promote and support that learning, and sustains leaders so they don’t burn out.

But I am optimistic nevertheless. I’ve seen the development of educational leadership over the past 30 years. We now know what it takes to sustain lead- ership for the long-haul. And we now have a rising generation of school leaders who come with much greater knowledge of and interest in diversity, shared mission, and social commitment. This is the kind of leadership we can all believe in. It will not only make leadership better for school leaders, it will also, I believe, create deeper, more sustainable improvement for all students in all our schools.

Source: Hargreaves, A. (2005). Sustainable leadership and social justice: A new paradigm. Independent School, 64(2), 16–24. © Andrew Hargreaves. Used with permission.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 302 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

Summary The author of this article writes about sustainable leadership according to seven principles. In addition to sustaining a focus on learning, securing success over time, and sustaining the self and people around the leader, Hargreaves reminds readers that sustainable leadership is “thrifty without being cheap,” meaning that money must be wisely spent in skill development that will continue long after hard and soft material resources are gone.

Other principles for building sustainable leadership include a commitment to systems thinking, social justice, environmental diversity, and capacity. He concludes by warning readers of the dangers of current reform efforts that are short-term and episodic; such efforts exhaust school leaders and detach them from their staff members.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Hargreaves describes educational leadership when he was growing up as often “rational,

linear, hierarchical, secretive, and controlling.” He continues by saying that such leader- ship in schools was often “lacking in mission and almost always bereft of passion.” Have you encountered leaders with some of these characteristics? How would you advise a school team to address these types of challenges in the administration?

2. The author uses environmental metaphors to explain his conception of sustainable leader- ship. He writes that at the beginning of the 20th century, there were 70 species of pears in Australia. Now, due to overspecialization and overstandardization, there are just two. Explain how this change may be relevant to current educational policies in the United States. How can leaders at all levels address the challenge of such overspecialization and overstandardization?

3. Explore some literature on systems thinking. Then explain why Hargreaves believes that this approach to change is essential for sustainable leadership.

4. As is the case with other authors in this chapter, Hargreaves believes strongly in collective intelligence and the need for leaders to surround themselves with other capable and cre- ative minds in order for the leadership to be sustainable. How can a leadership team find and nurture leaders not just for the present but also for the future?

5. Hargreaves writes: “The moral life of schools runs parallel to the academic life in schools.” What do you think he means by that? What do you think of that statement in the context of your work and your professional life?

6.4 Putting Faces on the Data, by Lyn Sharratt and Michael Fullan

Introduction Lyn Sharratt is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She is the former superintendent of curriculum and instruction services in the York Region District School Board and coauthor, with Michael FulIan, of Putting FACES on the Data: What Great Leaders Do! (Corwin, 2012). Michael Fullan is former dean and professor emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. He is currently the special advisor to the premier and Minister of Education in Ontario, Canada. He is the author of

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 303 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

many best-selling books, most recently Professional Capital (Teachers College Press, 2012), with Andy Hargreaves.

In this article, the authors address the current climate in education focused on data-driven prac- tice and the overwhelming amount of information available to leaders in schools. They assert, though, that “more information doesn’t necessarily make us smarter.” Leading change includes the ability to use information with “intentionality and finite precision.”

Sharratt and Fullan conducted a survey of school leaders in which they asked which leader- ship skills are most important. They coin the terms know-ability, mobilize-ability, and sustain- ability to represent their findings and argue that these three skill sets are necessary for prin- cipals to work directly with teachers to improve teaching and learning. That theme—a focus on teaching and learning and how leaders in schools participate in the process of teaching and learning—is central to change in education for the 21st century. If principals know what to do, are able to mobilize toward improvement, and are able to sustain such progress, positive change can happen.

Excerpt The following is an excerpt from Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2012). Putting faces on the data. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 48–52.

Amassing more data is not the same as gathering useful information.

When data is connected to individual students it becomes more meaningful and actionable.

School leaders need know-ability, mobilize-ability, and sustain-ability to use data to promote student success.

The sheer volume of information available today is becoming overwhelming. Pariser (2011) wrote:

900,000 blog posts, 50 million tweets, more than 60 million Facebook status updates, and 210 billion e-mails are sent off into the electronic ether every day. Eric Schmidt likes to point out that if you recorded all human communication, from the dawn of time to 2003, it’d take up about 5 billion gigabytes of storage space. Now we’re creating that much data every two days. (p. 11)

Yet more information doesn’t necessarily make us smarter. In fact, Carr (2010) said, “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for con- centration and contemplation” (p. 6). Jackson (2009) argued that there is so much going on that we are losing our ability for “deep, sustained, perceptive attention” (p. 13). The result is that we are attracted to what is flashy and instantly stimulating, and less and less inclined to pay attention to what is important.

Educators are also experiencing the same distracting information overload and struggling to find a way to manage it as they support their students. By

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 304 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

paying attention to the goals, aspirations, and context for each student’s learn- ing, principals and other school leaders can tighten their focus on relevant data and the necessary subsequent actions. But how can they translate that focus to systems, secondary schools, and classrooms? Our research says that principals must develop increasing intentionality and finite precision in their data analyses and follow-up actions and use data to make emotional connec- tions with and to develop cognitive insights for every student in their respon- sibility. But again, how does that happen?

During our presentations, we asked educators, “What are the top three lead- ership skills needed to put faces on the data?” Responses from 507 educators clearly indicated that they want someone who:

• Will know what to do • Is visible and gets people moving in the same direction • Leads for the long term.

To be precise, 45% said that to lead with credibility, leaders must first model knowledge of classroom practice—that is, assessment and instruction, or what we call know-ability. Further, 33% said that the ability to inspire and mobilize others through clear communication of commitment was essential—what we call mobilize-ability. Finally, 21% said that knowing how to establish a last- ing culture of shared responsibility and accountability was essential—what we call sustain-ability. Those three factors represent a specific focus to get results using precision leading and data gathering. When they come together, the result is increased student achievement for all.

Know-ability

Know-ability is when knowledgeable others make relevant data transparent. Data-driven instruction and the ubiquitous presence and use of data are core themes for promoting and maintaining efforts to improve. According to the respondents in our research, the key is principals’ deep, structured under- standing of evidence-based assessment and instructional practices in class- rooms. The principal must be the lead learner, modeling continuous learning, committing to being a co-leader and co-learner with teachers, and partici- pating in tangible assessment and instructional practices as a “knowledge- able other” (Sharratt, Ostinelh, & Cattaneo, 2010). As knowledgeable others, school leaders:

• Are attuned to what it looks like to use data to improve instruction in each class across the school.

• Stay the course by maintaining, reviewing, and monitoring lesson plans and school improvement plans to ensure alignment between the vision in the plan on paper and in the classroom practices recorded in lesson plans—this is the precise and focused use of data.

• Lead the case management approach, in which individual students are tracked and corrective action takes place on an ongoing basis and teachers have a regularly scheduled forum to discuss students who present them with instructional conundrums.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 305 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

• Improve the performance of teachers who are struggling and know how to reward their best teachers.

• Provide environments in which teachers work together to frame good practice. That is where teachers and principals conduct field- based research (data collection), such as performing collaborative inquiry and action research together to confirm or disprove the approaches they develop and implement on behalf of students.

• Articulate the expected use of data to drive instruction and provide differentiated professional learning opportunities for teachers to see and experience it in action.

Deliberate Pause Leaders who are outstanding continually take a deliberate pause and ask themselves these questions:

• Are my expectations high enough? • Are all students excelling—not just getting by—or are some going

unnoticed? How do I know? • Am I leading by example? • Am I out in classrooms daily and asking teachers questions about

their practice?

Know-ability Example: Intentional Use of Data Walls The data wall at Park Manor P.S. in Waterloo Region District School Board, Ontario, Canada, a middle level school we work in, has all students on it, including the nine students in the special needs class. Specially printed sticky notes identify boys (blue) and girls (pink) because staff members are con- cerned about performance differences between girls and boys and want to be able to monitor the variance in an obvious manner. The sticky notes have students’ photographs on them so that each student record truly represents a face and are updated each trimester.

The data wall carries a lot of decision-making information. The principal wrote:

Our data wall is in a confidential location we call the Staff Learning Center. It’s a small room that we set up in order to come together to discuss issues like how to increase all students’ achievement. Our learning goal for this year, arising from our data and connected to the Curriculum Expectations . . . has been to improve the written commu- nication for all students, paying particular attention to boys.

All teachers of a particular student who is performing below expectations add data about that student and then together identify the root causes and coun- termeasures that might improve his or her performance. Then they verify their actions.

The data wall enables the principal and the teachers to quickly see all students’ performance, the interventions needed and implemented, and whether those

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 306 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

interventions worked. It also helps them determine which students to focus on during case management meetings, which is their first-level intervention. Together they evaluate the best instructional strategies for those students who didn’t respond to individual teacher’s efforts. The engagement with the data benefits everyone: teachers make students’ achievement visible by put- ting faces on the data, and students have teachers who know what alternative instructional strategies are needed to support their learning. The data wall is alive with precise and endless possibilities for student performance and teacher growth.

Mobilize-ability

One of the principals we interviewed said, “Support and encouragement are crucial. Pushing too hard never works. Magic happens when teachers take initiative within a framework which has been developed by the district, like the 14 parameters. (See Sharratt & Fullan, 2009.) Incorporating professional learning into staff and department meetings needs to be led by staff not just the principal. When teachers share their best practices, things happen.”

Leaders must deprivatize practice, making teaching and learning transparent to all and debatable by all. How does that happen? Research from Ontario’s Education Quality and Accountability Office (Rogers, 2009) showed that

a school culture that focuses on learning for all students was repeat- edly described as an important factor in enabling each student to experience some measure of success . . . [Principals mobilize stake- holders by openly:]

• Holding and sustaining high academic, social and behavioral expectations;

• Using and demonstrating a variety of teaching methods to meet, in real ways, the needs of different students;

• Creating a consistently positive and caring school community; • Encouraging positive role models to whom students can relate; • Ensuring strong and effective educational leadership from the

principal, and, • Maintaining ongoing active engagement of parents in the school.

(p. 4)

Mobilize-ability Example: Instructional Walks and Talks for Concrete Data Collection According to our research respondents, principals’ deep understanding of successful assessment and instructional practices in classrooms is key. Therefore, principals must be committed to walking into classrooms daily, not to visit or wander around, but to observe and note successful practices and to confer with teachers afterwards. Principals often make assumptions about what is going on unless they make a conscientious effort to walk into classrooms. Conducting daily instructional walks and talks is a way of moni- toring expected practices in all classrooms—and is the most authentic data collection.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 307 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

Instructional walks and talks give principals opportunities to see what is being taught and enable them to address specific issues by tailoring professional learning at staff meetings and by strategically pairing teachers. Focused daily walks and talks in classrooms make monitoring enjoyable and less obtrusive and are a scheduling habit worth acquiring.

Deliberate Pause During my instructional walks and talks, I want to determine whether all stu- dents can answer the following questions:

• What am I learning? • How am I doing? • How do I know? • How can I improve? • Where do I go for help?

Sustain-ability

Achieving and sustaining substantial improvement for all students all the time is complex. Sustainability will be experienced when the data show that:

• All students continue to achieve • Decisions continue to reflect caring about students and teachers • Parents continue to feel like they are part of the fabric of school life—

no matter who the principal is.

The conditions in which school leaders can sustain reform efforts individu- ally and collectively are important (Fullan & Sharratt, 2007) because state and district wide reform relies heavily on mobilizing leadership at all levels of the system. One such condition is the creation of dedicated “second change agents” or what is sometimes referred to as “distributive leadership”—a criti- cal mass of leaders led by the principal who are working on establishing a culture of ongoing learning. The principal is the first change agent—the lead learner. Having one or more second change agents is essential—for example, a teacher leader or an embedded instructional coach who has direct responsi- bility and time during the school day to work alongside other teachers in their classrooms to:

• Link teachers with each other internally and across schools • Help set up data management systems • Work with the principal on the school improvement agenda.

Sustain-ability Example: The Annual Learning Fair Interdependent leadership practice and the 14th parameter (i.e., shared responsibility and accountability) are evident in the annual learning fairs now held in many of the jurisdictions in which we work. For those events, all elementary and secondary schools prepare a half-hour multimedia presenta- tion that is based on the following criteria:

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 308 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

• What the school set out to do that year • Evidence (data) to support their students’ increased literacy

achievement • The assessment and instructional strategies they used • Lessons learned • Challenges they are currently facing.

What is most impressive about the learning fairs is how articulate, consistent, and specific educators have become when they discuss the what, the why, the how, and the assessed impact of their work. It’s all about precise use of data to improve instruction. Every school in the district participates in teams, which means many change agents spread across all schools, all engaged in the same phenomenon, all using precise language, and all pushing practice to the next level.

Every school administrator and teacher team prepares an evidence based report (focused on student data) and then submits it to their district leaders. The reports show their improved school results and the intentional next steps to be incorporated in their updated school improvement plans for the next year. Low-performing leaders are supported, “pulled along,” and energized in this process by strong leaders who reach out to share accountability and responsibility for all students.

The annual reporting is a collaborative dialogue among schools and deepens participants’ understanding of their individual roles and the collective learn- ing that leads to the generation of additional next steps to be taken in their schools. In addition to generating new teaching strategies, it also broadens the interdependency from intraschool to interschool, with one important result being a reduction in the overall performance gap between schools—definitely an energizing way to use evidence (data) to deprivatize practice and mobilize teachers across schools in a district.

Deliberate Pause • How is the impact on student learning monitored? • Who monitors student learning? How? • Are learning goals aligned to standards or curriculum expectations? • How are success criteria aligned to learning goals, and how are they

differentiated for students? • Is feedback to students and teachers factual, objective, immediate,

and helpfully aligned with learning goals? • What examples do you have of putting faces on the data in your sec-

ondary school?

Conclusion

It is clear that principals must be deliberately engaged in leading instruc- tional improvement work with teachers. When Robinson (2012) found that the strongest leadership factor affecting student achievement in the school was the degree to which principals “participated as learners” in working with

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 309 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.4 Putting Faces on the Data

teachers to improve instruction and student learning, she was corroborating our findings (Sharratt & Fullan, 2012).

The three domains of leadership that we identified in this article are learn- able, are specific and focused, and make a big difference in improving teacher and student learning.

References Carr, N. (2010). The shallows. New York: Norton Publishing.

Fullan, M . & Sharratt, L. (2007). Sustaining leadership in complex times: An individual and system solution. In B. Davies (Ed.), Developing sustainable leadership. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Jackson, M. (2009). Distracted. New York: Prometheus.

Pariser, E . (2011). Filter bubble. New York: Penguin Press.

Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, W. T. (2009, April). Towards an understanding of gender differences in literacy achievement. EQAO Research Bulletin #5. Toronto, Canada: Education Quality and Accountability Office.

Sharratt, L., & Fullan M. (2009). Realization: The change imperative for deepening district-wide reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2012). Putting FACES on the data: What great leaders do! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sharratt, L., Ostinelli , G., & Cattaneo, A. (2010). The role of the “knowledgeable other” in improv- ing student achievement, school culture and teacher efficacy: Two case studies from Canadian and Swiss perspectives and experiences. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Source: Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2012). Putting faces on the data. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 48–52. © 2014 National Association of Secondary School Principals. For more information on NASSP products and services to promote excellence in middle level and high school leadership, visit www.nassp.org.

Summary The practical actions that successful leaders take is often not articulated in the discourse and research on leading change. Sharratt and Fullan offer a specific, practical action for each of the three research-based skills that principals can take to focus on information or data in order to improve learning.

The title of the article reflects the overall message. In order to use data intentionally and with precision, leaders need to put faces on those data; in other words, data at the macro level needs to be translated into real students and their needs at the school and classroom level. Data walls, instructional walks, and annual learning fairs are three concrete ways for principals to lead teachers in making sense of data linked to teaching and how students are doing.

Of particular interest is the attention to student input during instructional walks in which lead- ers ask students to report what they are learning, how they are doing, and how they can improve. This approach not only provides leaders and teachers with information but also invites students to think about their own learning in new ways and for new audiences.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 310 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

Critical Thinking Questions 1. The Sharratt and Fullan article addresses a critical issue in accountability today—the huge

amount of information available to teachers and leaders. The authors offer three ways to deal with this information in concrete ways: data walls, instructional walks, and annual learning fairs. What are the benefits of each of these approaches? In your view, do such pro- cesses help practitioners make sense of data in order to improve their practice? Explain.

2. How might the three skill areas that Sharratt and Fullan name apply in an online envi- ronment? How can online teaching and learning work with large data sets through such mechanisms as data walls, for example? Explain how individual teachers and course coordi- nators can use data walls and instructional walks online to gather data and use it.

3. Consistent with other articles in this chapter, Sharratt and Fullan note that there is a need for “second change agents” or teacher leaders to mobilize improvement and link teachers with each other. What do such teacher leaders, who would ostensibly work directly with data, need to know and be able to do? How might they gain the skills necessary to assist with the collection and intentional use of precise data?

4. The authors note the importance of leaders mobilizing to “deprivatize practice.” Discuss what this concept means and whether it is worth pursuing for the profession as a whole.

6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools? by Rick DuFour and Mike Mattos

Introduction Rick DuFour is an author and consultant on implementing the PLC process. He is coauthor, with Michael Fullan, of Cultures Built to Last: Making PLCs Systemic (Solution Tree, 2013) and, with Robert Marzano, of Leaders of Learning: How District, School, and Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement (Solution Tree, 2011). Mike Mattos is an education consultant and is coauthor of Simplifying Response to Intervention (Solution Tree, 2011).

DuFour and Mattos begin this article with a call to use research to develop a plan to improve schools. They argue that there is no evidence that current approaches—most particularly inten- sive classroom observations, merit pay for teachers, and intensive teacher evaluation based on student achievement results—actually improve school performance or, more importantly, stu- dent learning. The article intentionally incorporates research evidence for rejecting these popu- lar approaches adopted by states and school districts as well as for the proposed construct that they deem effective: PLCs.

The authors, both former principals, note that more intensive observations for teacher evalua- tions are nearly impossible, given the responsibilities of principals and, at the middle and sec- ondary level particularly, their lack of content knowledge across the curriculum. They point to research that indicates merit pay does not improve student achievement outcomes or change teachers, except perhaps negatively, unequivocally explaining, “A research-based program for improving schools would not be tied to merit pay.” The authors cite the American Educational Research Association in their assertion that there is no research evidence that supports the requirement that teacher (or principal) evaluation be based principally on student achievement.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 311 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

This article is exemplary in that it introduces the reader to specific and selected research to inform the authors’ argument, inviting those invested in school change to further read that research and become knowledgeable before embarking on an action plan that could be sustain- able. PLCs are viable and achieve results in terms of teacher change for continuous improve- ment, even in systems that mandate any or all of the accountability approaches that DuFour and Mattos reject.

Excerpt The following is an excerpt from DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational Leadership, 70(7), 34–40.

Principals are in a paradoxical position. No Child Left Behind admonished educators to use “scientific, research-based strategies” to ensure that all stu- dents learn. Likewise, Race to the Top requires educators to use “research- based” school improvement models. Unfortunately, the core strategies of both of these reform initiatives largely ignore this call for practices grounded in research. Principals are being asked to improve student learning by imple- menting mandated reforms that have consistently proven ineffective in rais- ing student achievement.

The current emphasis on using more intensive supervision and evaluation of teachers to improve school performance illustrates this irony. Accord- ing to Race to the Top guidelines, this more rigorous supervision process should influence a teacher’s professional development, compensation, promo- tion, retention, tenure, and certification. Ultimately, the evaluations should reward highly effective educators with merit pay and remove those deemed ineffective.

Faulty Logic

At first glance, this approach to improving schools seems to make sense. After all, research does say that quality teaching is one of the most significant fac- tors in student learning. Further, there’s almost universal agreement that the current system of teacher evaluation in the United States is ineffective. Three of four teachers report that their evaluation process has virtually no impact on their classroom practice (Duffett, Farkas, Rotherham, & Silva, 2008). Like the children of Lake Wobegon, almost all teachers are deemed to be above average, if not superior. Tenured teachers are almost never found to be unsat- isfactory. As a comprehensive study (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009) of the current system concluded, “Teacher evaluation does not recog- nize good teaching, leaves poor teaching unaddressed, and does not inform decision-making in any meaningful way” (p. 1).

So why not make tougher evaluation of teachers a cornerstone of school improvement? Why not require principals to spend more time in classrooms supervising and evaluating teachers into better performance?

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 312 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

The premise that more frequent and intensive evaluation of teachers by their principals will lead to higher levels of student learning is only valid if two con- ditions exist. The first is that educators know how to improve student learning but have not been sufficiently motivated to do so. The second is that principals have the time and expertise to improve each teacher’s professional practice by observing that teacher in the classroom. Neither of these conditions exists.

Do Carrots and Sticks Motivate Teachers? We can find no research to support the assumption that educators choose to use mediocre instructional strategies and withhold effective practices until they receive increased financial incentives. As former principals with almost six decades of experience working with teachers, we found that the members of our faculty, almost without exception, started each day with honorable intentions, worked tirelessly on behalf of their students, and used the best strategies they possessed to promote student success. Further, there’s little evidence to support the idea that offering stronger rewards when educators move in the right direction and applying more dire consequences when they don’t—dangling crunchier carrots and wielding sharper sticks—spurs teach- ers to better performance.

Research has consistently established that merit pay does not improve stu- dent outcomes or change teacher behavior in a positive way, that it may actu- ally contribute to declines in student learning, and that it’s typically aban- doned within a few years of implementation (Fryer, 2011; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Springer et al., 2010). A research-based program for improving schools would not be tied to merit pay.

As for wielding sharper sticks, in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel Pink (2011) presents compelling evidence that this approach has a decidedly negative effect on the performance of knowledge workers like educators. This is not new information. In 1986, W. Edwards Deming argued that leaders must “drive out fear” from their organizations because appeals to fear resulted in short term thinking, fostered competition rather than collaboration, and served as a barrier to continual improvement. A research-based program for improving schools would not be tied to sanc- tions and punishments intended to generate fear.

The National Center for Education and the Economy (Tucker, 2011) couldn’t find any evidence that the carrots-and-sticks strategy leads to improved student achievement in the United States or that any of the world’s high- performing school systems use such strategies. The American Educational Research Association declared that “neither research evidence related to growth models nor best practice related to assessment supports the proposed requirement that assessment of teachers and principals be based centrally on student achievement” (Viadero, 2009). A research-based approach to school reform would not define improvement solely as higher scores on an annual standardized achievement test.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 313 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

Do Principal Observations Improve Teaching Practices? But even if we set the research aside, questions remain: Do principals have the time and expertise to enhance student learning through classroom observa- tions? Is this the best way to improve a school?

To answer these questions, consider Tennessee, one of the first states to receive a Race to the Top grant. The Tennessee model calls for 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation to be based on principal observations, 35 percent on student growth, and 15 percent on student achievement data. Principals or evaluators must observe new teachers six times each year and licensed teach- ers four times each year, considering one or more of four areas—instruction, professionalism, classroom environment, and planning. These four areas are further divided into 116 subcategories. Observations are to be preceded by a pre-conference, in which the principal and the teacher discuss the lesson, and followed by a post-conference, in which the principal shares his or her impressions of the teacher’s performance. Principals must then input data on the observation using the state rubric for assessing teachers. Principals report that the process requires four to six hours for each observation.

No doubt these requirements are well intentioned, but we’re convinced that advocates of this approach fail to recognize the crushing demands on the contemporary principal. A synthesis of research has identified 21 differ- ent responsibilities that principals must address in an environment where any or all of those responsibilities may suddenly be put on the back burner by crises over which the principal has little control (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

What We Learned as Principals

But beyond the time demands, the premise behind the policy of having prin- cipals observe teachers and help them improve is fundamentally flawed. We were both award-winning principals who devoted massive amounts of time and energy to trying to improve teaching through our different systems’ supervision and evaluation processes. We typically found that teachers were unpersuaded by our recommendations. After all, previous principals had found them satisfactory, if not exemplary.

Further, as middle and high school principals, we often observed teachers in content areas in which we were clueless. As former social studies teachers, we were not prepared to help a Spanish teacher improve when we couldn’t understand what he or she was saying. We were ill-equipped to enhance the pedagogy of an industrial arts teacher when we were mechanically inept. Because we frequently were unable to determine the appropriateness of either the content or the level of its rigor, we had to resort to generic obser- vations about teaching and apply what we knew about effective questioning strategies, student engagement, classroom management, and so on.

We don’t mean to imply that the process was without benefits. As a new pair of eyes in the classroom, we were sometimes able to help a teacher become

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 314 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

aware of unintended instructional or classroom management patterns. We could express appreciation for the wonderful work a teacher was doing because we had witnessed it firsthand. We observed powerful instructional strategies that we were able to share with other teachers. We increased our own knowledge about what constitutes effective teaching.

So classroom observations can be meaningful and beneficial to some extent, but principals should not use them as their key strategy for improving their schools. Perhaps intensive supervision of teaching would be a viable strategy for improving student learning—if good teaching could be reduced to a single template, rubric, or checklist aligned to program fidelity. However, there’s no such thing as a universally effective teaching strategy; the effectiveness of any given strategy can only be determined by evidence of its effect on student learning (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). The checklist approach to providing feedback to teachers doesn’t enhance their pedagogical expertise. As Marzano (2009) notes, it’s “antithetical to true reflective practice. . . [and] is profoundly anti-professional” (p. 37).

The Case for the PLC Process

If principals want to improve student achievement in their school, rather than focus on the individual inspection of teaching, they must focus on the collec- tive analysis of evidence of student learning.

Of course, teaching and learning are not divorced from each other. The key to improved student learning is to ensure more good teaching in more class- rooms more of the time. The most powerful strategy for improving both teach- ing and learning, however, is not by micromanaging instruction but by cre- ating the collaborative culture and collective responsibility of a professional learning community (PLC).

Studies conducted by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995); the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (Carroll, Fulton, & Doerr, 2010); the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (2005); the Wallace Foundation (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010); and the American Educational Research Association (Hol- land, 2005) provide just a small sampling of the research base that confirms the positive effect of the PLC process on both student and adult learning. As a review of the research on PLCs concluded,

The collective results of these studies offer an unequivocal answer to the question about whether the literature supports the assumption that student learning increases when teachers participate in profes- sional learning communities. The answer is a resounding and encour- aging yes. (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008, p. 87)

This finding is not limited to the United States. In a study of high-performing school systems throughout the world, researchers concluded that successful systems structured their schools to function as PLCs to provide the teacher

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 315 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

collaboration vital to powerful professional development (Barber & Mour- shed, 2009). A report from the International Academy of Education (Timper- ley, 2008) concluded that the key to improving teaching was ensuring that educators “participate in a professional learning community that is focused on becoming responsive to students.”

Research shows that educators in schools that have embraced PLCs are more likely to

• Take collective responsibility for student learning, help students achieve at higher levels, and express higher levels of professional satisfaction (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011).

• Share teaching practices, make results transparent, engage in criti- cal conversations about improving instruction, and institutionalize continual improvement (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010).

• Improve student achievement and their professional practice at the same time that they promote shared leadership (Louis et al., 2010).

• Experience the most powerful and beneficial professional develop- ment (Little, 2006).

• Remain in the profession (Johnson & Kardos, 2007).

Research has also established that simply providing time for educators to meet will have no effect on student learning unless their meetings focus on the right work (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009). In traditional schools, the question of who will determine what constitutes the right work becomes a question of power: Will the principal or teacher teams have the authority to determine what will happen at team meetings? However, in a professional learning community, principals and teachers engage in collective inquiry to decide on the work that will most benefit their students. To help more stu- dents learn at higher levels, team members ask themselves,

• What knowledge, skills, and dispositions should all students acquire as a result of the unit we’re about to teach?

• How much time will we devote to this unit? • How will we gather evidence of student learning throughout the unit

in our classrooms and at its conclusion as a team? • How can we use this evidence of learning to improve our individual

practice and our team’s collective capacity to help students learn, to intervene for students unable to demonstrate proficiency, and to enrich the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency?

To foster school cultures in which PLCs flourish, principals need to focus on five key steps (see “Five Steps to Success on the PLC Journey”). They can start by forming teams in which members share responsibility to help all students learn essential content and skills, providing teams with time to collaborate, helping to clarify the work that teams need to do, and ensuring that teams have access to the resources and support they need to accomplish their objectives.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 316 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

For example, a team that attempts to create a unit assessment would benefit from an overview of the research on the power of common formative assess- ments to improve both teaching and learning, a brief article on keys to writ- ing good assessments, access to released sets of assessment items for the skill they’re teaching, and examples of the assessment frameworks used by their state or province to ensure they become familiar with the format and rigor of those assessments. For performance-based assessments, team mem- bers might need recommendations from content experts on the criteria they should use in assessing the quality of student work as well as time to practice applying those criteria until they’re able to provide students with consistent feedback.

But the most vital support a principal can give these collaborative teams is helping them use evidence of student learning to improve their teaching. When members of a team make the results from their common assessments transparent, analyze those results collectively, and discuss which instructional strategies seem most effective based on actual evidence of student learning, they’re using the most powerful catalysts for improving instruction (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2010; Hattie, 2009). This ongoing, collective analysis of learning is far more likely to improve teaching practice than a principal stopping by a classroom a few times each year to see whether the teacher is making the right moves.

The PLC process also promotes shared leadership by empowering teams to make important decisions. Teachers have a voice in determining the content they’ll teach, how they’ll sequence the content, which instructional strate- gies they’ll use, and how they’ll assess student learning. At the same time, principals ask their teams to be accountable for results, and they publicly rec- ognize and celebrate incremental progress. Principal acknowledgement and appreciation are vital to sustaining a continual improvement effort (Heath & Heath, 2010).

Finally, effective principals are willing to confront those who fail to honor the commitments to their team and their obligations to their students. These principals make it clear that an individual teacher cannot disregard the team- developed curriculum, dismiss the sequencing of content, refuse to admin- ister the team’s common assessments, or opt out of the collaborative team process in any way. They are willing to use their authority to break down the walls of educator isolation and create new norms of collaboration and col- lective responsibility for student learning (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Lup- pescu, & Easton, 2010).

A Culture of Collective Responsibility

Both research and our own experience as principals have convinced us that this PLC process is more likely to improve instruction than classroom obser- vations. An algebra teacher has a better chance of becoming more effective when he or she works with other algebra teachers weekly to improve student

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 317 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

learning than when he or she is observed by a former social studies teacher four times a year.

Further, the PLC process has two powerful levers for changing adult behav- ior: irrefutable evidence of better results and positive peer pressure (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2010; Hattie, 2009). When team members see that students in a colleague’s classroom consistently perform at higher levels on team- developed assessments, they become curious about the conditions and prac- tices that led to those better results. Further, if a team is consistently unable to achieve its goals because the students in a team member’s classroom are repeatedly unable to demonstrate proficiency, there’s more pressure on the teacher in that classroom to try new practices.

So what’s a principal to do when confronted with state or district policies that mandate a more stringent approach to evaluation? Although principals may be stuck with punitive accountability policies, they don’t have to be stuck with a punitive mind-set (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). A highly effective principal will look for ways to align the process to a culture of collective responsibility for learner-focused outcomes.

For example, the principal can repurpose the individual teacher goal setting process to focus on team goals. Rather than establishing goals for individual teachers that focus on teacher activities (“I will improve my ability to use dif- ferentiated instruction”), they help teams establish collective goals that focus on student learning (“Last year, 84 percent of our students demonstrated pro- ficiency on the state assessment. This year, we will help at least 90 percent demonstrate proficiency”). These results-oriented goals help create the inter- dependence and mutual accountability vital to effective teams.

Principal observations can provide feedback to team members who imple- ment new strategies as part of their action research. For example, a team may decide that members need to focus on checking for student understanding more frequently and effectively to improve achievement in a unit that has tra- ditionally proven difficult for the students. The principal could focus on that aspect of instruction during observations and work with teachers to expand their strategies in that area. Finally, many new evaluation tools have com- ponents related to teacher collaboration. An effective principal will use that aspect of evaluation as a catalyst to strengthen the team process.

Asking the Right Question

If current efforts to supervise teachers into better performance have proven ineffective (and they have), the solution is not to double down on a bad strategy and demand more classroom observations, tighter supervision, and more punitive evaluations. The effort to improve schools through tougher supervision and evaluation is doomed to fail because it asks the wrong ques- tion. The question isn’t, How can I do a better job of monitoring teaching? but How can we collectively do a better job of monitoring student learning? Today’s schools don’t need “instructional leaders” who attempt to ensure

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 318 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

that teachers use the right moves. Instead, schools need learning leaders who create a school wide focus on learning both for students and the adults who serve them.

Five Steps to Success on the PLC Journey

1. Embrace the premise that the fundamental purpose of the school is to ensure that all students learn at high levels and enlist the staff in examining every existing practice, program, and procedure to ensure it aligns with that purpose.

2. Organize staff into meaningful collaborative teams that take collec- tive responsibility for student learning and work interdependently to achieve shared goals for which members hold themselves mutually accountable.

3. Call on teams to establish a guaranteed and viable curriculum for each unit that clarifies the essential learning for all students, agree on pacing guidelines, and develop and administer common forma- tive assessments to monitor each student’s learning at the end of each unit.

4. Use the evidence of student learning to identify

• Students who need additional time and support to become proficient.

• Students who need enrichment and extension of their learning because they’re already highly proficient.

• Teachers who help students achieve at high levels so team mem- bers can examine those teachers’ practices.

• Teachers who struggle to help students become proficient so team members can assist in addressing the problem.

• Skills or concepts that none of the teachers were able to help students achieve at the intended level so the team can expand its learning beyond its members to become more effective in teach- ing those skills or concepts. The team can seek help from mem- bers of other teams in the building with expertise in that area, specialists from the central office, other teachers of the same content in the district, or networks of teachers throughout the United States that they interact with online.

5. Create a coordinated intervention plan that ensures that students who struggle receive additional time and support for learning in a way that is timely, directive, diagnostic, precise, and most important, systematic.

References Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2005). Professional learning communities: Profes-

sional development strategies that improve instruction. Providence, RI: Author. Retrieved from http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/prof learning.pdf

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2009). Shaping the future: How good education systems can become great in the decade ahead. McKinsey and Company. Retrieved from http://www .mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundtable.pdf

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 319 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carroll, T., Fulton, K., & Doerr, H. (2010). Team up for 21st century teaching and learning: What research and practice reveal about professional learning. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Duffett, A., Farkas, S., Rotherham, A. J., & Silva, E. (2008). Waiting to be won over: Teachers speak on the profession, unions, and reform. Washington, DC: Education Sector.

DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Making PLCs systemic. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom lead- ers improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Boston: Harvard Educational Press.

Fryer, R. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City Schools. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fullan, M. (2010). The moral imperative realized. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement. New York: Routledge.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York: Crown Publishing.

Holland, H. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achieve- ment. Research Points: Essential Information for Educational Policy, 3(1), 1–4. Wash- ington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. (2007). Professional culture and the promise of colleagues. In S. M. Johnson (Ed.), Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools (pp. 139–166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Little, J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the learning- centered school. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_pdreport.pdf

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Inves- tigating the links to improved student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.

Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 52–56.

Marzano, R. (2009). Setting the record straight on “high-yield” strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 30–37.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focus- ing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi- experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 320 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Section 6.5 How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?

Springer, M. G., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D. F., Ballou, D., Le, V., Pepper, M., . . . Stecher, M. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.

Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. (Educational Practices Series. No. 18). Brussels: International Academy of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48727127.pdf

Tucker, M. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for educational reform. Washington, DC: National Center for Education and the Economy.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of the research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

Viadero, D. (2009, September 3). Where’s the research in ‘race to the top’? [Blog post]. Educa- tion Week: Inside School Research. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school -research/2009/09/wheres_the_research_in_the_rac.html

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to recognize differences in teacher effectiveness. New York: New Teacher Project.

Source: DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational Leadership, 70(7), 34–40. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Summary DuFour and Mattos suggest that educators shift their attention away from the “individual inspection of teaching” toward the “collective analysis of student learning.” They provide evi- dence of success when teachers and leaders form PLCs in order to share teaching practices and investigate how and when students are learning. PLCs, though, raise issues of power—who con- trols the agenda, who leads the meetings, and who determines the outcomes. The authors assert that if the attention remains on what is best for students, these power issues can be addressed by individual PLCs.

PLCs are meaningful when they focus on common assessments and their relationship to spe- cific teaching approaches and strategies. PLCs break down teacher isolation and develop what DuFour and Mattos call a “culture of collective responsibility.” Finally, the PLC process is more likely to improve teaching than the traditional and largely ineffective use of classroom observa- tions by principals. Instead of monitoring teaching from the leader’s perspective, PLCs monitor learning from a collaborative practice perspective.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. DuFour and Mattos make a convincing argument for the implementation of PLCs to

improve schools. Describe three major problems associated with PLCs and offer concrete and viable solutions to those problems.

2. In their assertion that a system of teacher evaluation does not necessarily contribute to positive change, the authors note that “Tenured teachers are almost never found unsatisfac- tory.” Cite at least two reasons this is true. What kind of teacher evaluation system might actually be valuable for tenured, experienced teachers that could contribute to continuous improvement?

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 321 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Summary and Resources

3. In order for PLCs to be a mechanism for change, DuFour and Mattos claim that leaders must be willing to face and address issues with teachers who are ineffective and fail. As a leader, how would you work with weak teachers, given what DuFour and Mattos describe in this article?

4. What is the role of innovation in a school or system that supports research-based practices and PLCs, as DuFour and Mattos describe?

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary

• Educational leadership in the 21st century is collaborative, shared, and team-oriented. Such a vision requires the integration of teachers as leaders who contribute in specific ways to innovation and change. The work of Brown, Margolis and Doring, and Harg- reaves underscore the value of teachers as leaders. DuFour and Mattos propose the use of PLCs as the primary means to improve schooling.

• In order for change to be positive, careful attention must be paid to the relationship between instruction and assessment. Sharratt and Fullan underscore instruction and assessment as a fundamental principle for whole-system reform.

• The role of research cannot be overestimated in the process of intentional and system- atic change. DuFour and Mattos discuss this directly and cite research to support the implementation of PLCs rather than principal observation and teacher evaluation to enhance student learning. The Margolis and Doring article represents research that informs teacher leadership.

• Leadership, particularly teacher leadership, is most effective when it is grounded in content area goals. Five of the eight articles in this chapter (Sharratt and Fullan, Margolis and Doring, Hargreaves, and Dufour and Mattos) affirm the importance of content area knowledge as a means to improve quality teaching and assessment. This principle is also an argument for more teacher leadership, given that principals cannot possibly be well versed in all disciplines.

• Leadership is only effective if it can be sustained and not dependent on a single person. Sustainability is an indicator that should be considered in strategic planning as dis- cussed in the excerpts from Hargreaves and from Sharratt and Fullan.

• Several of the authors in this chapter assert that change is most meaningful when it is systemic and implemented for all schools in a district or region. Sharratt and Fullan underscore this principle; Whole-system reform, however, must accommodate local, state, and national contexts for change as well as the social and behavioral norms of schools as institutions. Research and precedent in other schools can guide initiatives, but it is the leaders and teachers in collaboration with their communities who inter- pret how such changes can work effectively.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 322 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Summary and Resources

End of Chapter Critical Thinking Questions

1. Margolis and Doring posed three research questions that guided their study, includ- ing “What supports or hinders impactful modeling by HTLs”? Consider what you have learned about teacher leadership in this chapter and propose three to five research questions that you believe would be beneficial to pursue. What do you wonder about concerning the preparation of teachers leaders, their assignments, their skills, and their impact?

2. According to five of the authors in this chapter, content knowledge is a critical compo- nent of teaching and the improvement of teaching, which suggests an essential role for content specialists or master teachers in reform. Still, as authors in this chapter report, teacher evaluations are performed in most schools by principals or assistant principals who may know nothing about the content being taught by the teachers they observe. What kind of teacher evaluation/observation model would incorporate what we know about content knowledge and teaching improvement?

3. The authors in this chapter call for leadership, which is directly linked to instruction and assessment. What might be the role, if any, of universities in helping to bridge these fields and areas of expertise?

Tying It All Together Throughout this book, there are consistent themes concerning the possibilities and challenges for education in the 21st century, including the benefit of collaboration, the intentional research and practice focused in high-quality teaching, and the ultimate and consistent goal of improving student learning. Other chapters have highlighted the need for more knowledge about assess- ment and how assessment is explicitly related to instruction. Some chapters have called for and presented research, including practitioner/teacher research, in order to ground what happens in schools, classrooms, and alternative learning environments in tangible evidence of what works. There has also been consistent calls for innovation, in digital technology teaching, in curricu- lum integration, and in authentic assessment that is linked to real-world tasks and real-world audiences.

Chapter 6 adds a dimension that is not always found in a text focused on curriculum and instruc- tion, that is, the dimension of leadership, which is often separated from the professional develop- ment and learning initiatives for teachers. Including a chapter on leadership in this book signals a major thesis of the chapter, namely, that leadership is no longer confined to the central office but rather is now increasingly distributed or shared across professionals in a learning environment.

All of the themes noted here are in this chapter because leaders also need to attend to collabora- tion, research, assessment, and instruction as elements connected to continuous improvement. As roles for administrative leaders in schools continue to expand, others must gain the expertise to think systemically and, at the same time, work on student/teacher interactions that help all students progress. Readers are encouraged to read all chapters in this text and ask the ques- tion, “What does this mean for leaders?” in addition to, “What is my role in leading for positive change?”

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 323 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Summary and Resources

4. Sharratt and Fullan, as well as Hargreaves, discuss the importance of sustainable leadership. In the field today, though, there is considerable administrative turnover and a need for more principals and assistant principals to fill empty posts. What might be remedies for this situation and how might the profession work for change that encour- ages longevity in leadership?

5. What are the two or three most significant takeaways for you from this chapter?

Further Reading Carter, D. (2012). Leadership principles. Connected Principals. Retrieved from http://

connectedprincipals.com/archives/6984 Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. W. (2012). Social justice and leadership preparation: Developing a

transformative curriculum. Planning and Changing, 43(1–2), 96–112. Fullan, M., & Levin, B. (2009). The fundamentals of whole-system reform. Education Week,

28(35), 30–31. Mangin, M. M. (2005). Distributed leadership and the culture of schools: Teacher leaders’

strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 15(4), 454–484. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An inte-

gration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412 http://eaq.sagepub.com/ content/39/3/370

Phelps, P. H. (2008). Helping teachers become leaders. Clearing House, 81(3), 119–122. Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspec-

tive. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187–226. http://eaq.sagepub.com/ content/44/2/187

Roby, D. E. (2011). Teacher leaders impacting school culture. Education, 131(4), 782–790. Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum 69(2), 143–150. Taylor, M., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., & Kinsella, P. (2011). Teacher professional leadership in

support of teacher professional development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 27(1), 85–94.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. doi:10.3102/00346543074003255 http://rer.sagepub.com/content/74/3/255

Key Terms

distributed leadership “Distributed lead- ership is first and foremost about leader- ship practice rather than leaders or their roles, functions, routines, and structures. Rather than viewing leadership practice as a product of a leader’s knowledge and skill, the distributed perspective defines it as the interactions between people and their situa- tion. These interactions, rather than any par- ticular action, are critical in understanding leadership practice” (Spillane, 2005, p. 144).

hybrid teacher leaders Teachers who both teach K–12 students and lead other teachers.

studio classroom Place where teacher leaders model lessons for peer teachers with students present (Margolis & Doring, 2012).

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 324 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Summary and Resources

sustainable leadership “[M]eans not simply whether something can last, but how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future. . . . Sustainable leadership means how your leadership affects other people around you. Sustainable leadership is therefore fundamentally not just about keeping things going, but also about social justice, about your impact on other people, whom your actions affect over time” (Harg- reaves, 2005, p. 18).

teacher leaders Coaches, staff develop- ers, instructional leaders, mentors, data collectors, and analysts in order to sup- port instruction, assessment and school improvement.

whole-system reform “improving every classroom, every school, and every district in the state, province, or country, not just some schools. The moral and political purpose of whole-system reform is ensuring that every- one will be affected for the better, starting on day one of implementing the strategy” (Fullan & Levin, 2009, p. 31).

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 325 5/21/14 3:16 PM

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 326 5/21/14 3:16 PM