Purpose: This study examines the outcomes of one regional intermediate school district’s effort to promote literacy coach role implementation in its 20 constituent districts. The findings from this study provide information about the kinds of district-level contexts that influenced literacy coach role implementation and how those contexts were influential. Research Methods: Data were collected from 20 districts that participated in a literacy coach training program provided by the regional intermediate school district. Interviews were conducted in spring 2007 with assistant superintendents or their designees. Findings: Districts’ implementation of literacy coach roles was influenced by four contextual factors: state and national reform, finances, student performance data, and existing roles and programs. Variations in these factors were associated with differences in districts’ implementation of literacy coach roles. Implications: This study has implications for how districts understand their role in relation to schools and the implementation of reforms.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2003). Chicago Reading Initiative-Chicago, IL. Washington, CD : Author
2.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Barnes, C. ( 2002). Standards reform in high-poverty schools: Managing conflict and building capacity. New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Camburn, E.M., Kimball, S.M., & Lowenhaupt, R. (2008). Going to scale with teacher leadership: Lessons learned from a districtwide literacy coach initiative . In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 23-44). New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
Camburn, E.M., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J.E. ( 2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.
6.
Chrispeels, J.H. ( 1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 453-481.
7.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. ( 1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. ( 2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S.S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. ( 2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school successThousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.
10.
Cuban, L. ( 1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York.
11.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M.E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in Success for All schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219-249.
12.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Conchas, G.Q. ( 2001). How context mediates policy: The implementation of single gender public schooling in California. Teachers College Record , 103(2), 184-206.
13.
Elmore, R.F. ( 2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
14.
Elmore, R.F., & Burney, D. ( 1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Fairman, J., & Firestone, W.A. (2001). The district role in state assessment policy: An exploratory study. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 124-147). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Firestone, W.A. ( 1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.
17.
Firestone, W.A., Mangin, M.M., Martinez, M.C., & Polovsky, T. ( 2005). Content and coherence in district professional development: Three case studies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 413-448.
18.
Fullan, M.G. ( 1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. ( 2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
20.
Halverson, R., & Thomas, C.N. ( 2008). Student services practices as a model for data-driven instructional leadership. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 163-182). New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
Hart, A.W. ( 1990). Impacts of the school social unit on teacher authority during work redesign. American Educational Research Journal , 27(3), 503-532.
22.
Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. ( 1999). The essentials of effective professional development . In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Hightower, A.M., Knapp, M.S., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
Honig, M.I. ( 2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292-338.
25.
Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. ( 2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26.
Kelleher, M. ( 2002). Chicago Reading Initiative: Building a program under the gun. Catalyst Chicago, 8(7), 4-7.
27.
Kennedy, M. ( 2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. ( 2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
29.
Lord, B., Cress, K., & Miller, B. ( 2008). Teacher leadership in support of large-scale mathematics and science education reform. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 55-76). New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
Lortie, D. ( 1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S.E., & Hewson, P.W. ( 2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
Lowi, T.J. ( 1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.
33.
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), 456-484.
34.
Mangin, M.M. ( 2006). Teacher leadership and instructional improvement: Teachers’ perspectives. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 159-192). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
35.
Mangin, M.M. ( 2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadershipEducational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.
36.
Mangin, M.M. ( 2008). The influence of organizational design on instructional teacher leadership. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 77-98). New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (Eds.). (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
Manno, C.M., & Firestone, W.A. (2008). Content is the subject: How teacher leaders with different subject knowledge interact with teachers . In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 36-54). New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
Marsh, J.A. ( 2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging literature. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25-40). New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
McDonnell, L.M., & Elmore, R.F. ( 1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
41.
McLaughlin, M. ( 1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
42.
McLaughlin, M. ( 1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation . In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 143-155). Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. ( 1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 220-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Murphy, J. ( 2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .
46.
Neufeld, B. ( 2002). Using what we know: Implications for scaling-up implementation of the CCL model. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
47.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. ( 2002). Off to a good start: Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the effectice practice schools. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
48.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. ( 2003). Year II of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective practice schools: Expanding the work. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
49.
Neufeld, B., Roper, D., & Baldassari, C. (2003). Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the Boston Public Schools: Accounts from the schools . Cambridge, MA: Education Matters .
50.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
51.
Odden, A. R. (Ed.). (1991). Education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York.
52.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. ( 2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
53.
Odden, A.R., & Archibald, S.J. (2009). Doubling student performance . . . and finding the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
54.
Peterson, P., Rabe, B., & Wong, K. ( 1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
55.
Quality counts. (2007, January 4). Education Week, 26(17). Available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2007/01/04/
56.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. ( 2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-947). New York: Macmillan.
Smylie, M., & Denny, J.W. ( 1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259.
59.
Smylie, M.A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. ( 2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century; 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 101, pt. 1, pp. 162-188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Spillane, J. ( 1998). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variabilityEducational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.
61.
Spillane, J.P. ( 2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. ( 2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
63.
Spillane, J., & Thompson, C.L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 19(2), 185-203.
64.
Stoelinga, S.R. ( 2006). Seeking the "S" in CMSI: History and implementation of the science initiative. Chicago: PRAIRIE Group.
65.
Stoelinga, S.R. ( 2008). Leading from above and below: Formal and informal teacher leadership. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 99-119). New York: Teachers College Press.
66.
Supovitz, J.A. ( 2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
67.
Supovitz, J.A. ( 2008). Instructional influence in American high schools. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 144-162). New York: Teachers College Press.
68.
Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. ( 2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980
69.
Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. ( 1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
70.
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.
71.
York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., & Hur, J. ( 2008). Teacher leadership: Leading from the middle . . . learning side-by-side. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 12-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
