This article reports findings from a 3-year longitudinal qualitative case study conducted in three urban elementary schools that examined the ways in which local leadership supported the initiation and early development of evidence-based grade-level collaboration as a mechanism for improving student literacy learning. Findings suggest eight key leadership roles—either individually enacted or jointly performed by principals and literacy coordinators. Central features of these principal–literacy coordinator relationships are identified and a shared leadership framework that details these eight leadership roles as well as strategies associated with role enactment are presented.
AndersonS.LeithwoodK.StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 292-327.
2.
BallD.CohenD. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
3.
BlackP.WilliamsD. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-147.
4.
BlancS.ChristmanJ.LiuR.MitchellC.TraversE.BulkleyK. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 205-225.
BrunnerC.FascaC.HeinzeJ.HoneyM.LightD.MandinachE.WexlerD. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 241-267.
7.
BurchP.SpillaneJ. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 103, 519-535.
8.
CamburnE.RowanB.TaylorJ. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.
9.
CobbP.BowersJ. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
10.
CoplandM. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375-396.
11.
CosnerS. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 248-291.
12.
CosnerS. (in press-a). Teacher learning, instructional considerations, and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership.
13.
CosnerS. (in press-b). Leading the on-going development of collaborative data practices: Advancing a schema for diagnosis and intervention. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
14.
CrespoS. (2006). Elementary teacher talk in mathematics study groups. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(1), 29-56.
15.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 219-249.
16.
DatnowA.ParkV.WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance Rossier School of Education University of Southern California.
DealT.KennedyA. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
DealT.PetersonK. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
20.
DiamondJ.CooperK. (2007). The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. In MossP. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: The 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part 1 (pp. 241-263). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21.
DiPaolaM.HoyW. (2007). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation, and professional development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
22.
DonaldsonG. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
DonmoyerR.GallowayF. (2010). Reconsidering the utility of case study designs for researching school reform in a neo-scientific era: Insights from a multiyear, mixed-methods study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 3-30.
24.
EarlL.TimperleyH. (Eds.). (2009). Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement. New York, NY: Springer.
25.
ErmelingB. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26, 377-388.
26.
EylonB.BergerH.BagnoE. (2008). An evidence-based continuous professional development programme on knowledge integration in physics: A study of teachers’ collective discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 619-641.
27.
FalkB. (2001). Professional learning through assessment. In LiebermanA.MillerL. (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 118-141). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
FirestoneW.GonzalezR. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. In MossP. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making. The 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1 (pp. 132-154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29.
FosterD.NoyceP. (2004). The mathematics assessment collaborative: Performance testing to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 367-374.
30.
GallimoreR.ErmelingB.SaundersW.GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109, 537-553.
31.
GoetzM.AlahL.RigganM. (2009, December). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
32.
HackmanJ. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
HallingerP. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351.
35.
HallingerP.MurphyJ. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 54-62.
36.
HalversonR.GriggJ.PrichettR.ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 158-193.
37.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS.MandinachE.SupovitzJ.WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision-making. IES Practice Guide. What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
HawleyW.ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39.
IkemotoG.MarshJ. (2007). Cutting through the “data-driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In MossP. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part 1 (pp. 105-131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
40.
KazemiE.FrankeM. L. (2003, April). Using student work to support professional development in elementary mathematics (Document W-03-1). Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
41.
KerrK.MarshJ.IkemotoG.DarilekH.BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496-520.
42.
KnappM.CoplandM.PleckiM.PortinB.Colleagues. (2006, October). Leading, learning, and leadership support. Seattle: University of Washington. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
43.
KnappM.CoplandM.SwinnertonJ. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In MossP. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: The 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part 1 (pp. 74-104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
44.
KnappM.CoplandM.SwinnertonJ.Monpas-HuberJ. (2006). Data informed leadership. Seattle: University of Washington. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
45.
KoseB. (2009). The principal’s role in professional development for social justice: An empirically-based transformative framework. Urban Education, 44, 628-662.
46.
LachatM.SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 333-349.
47.
LaiM.McNaughtonS. (2009). Raising student achievement in poor communities through evidence-based conversations. In EarlL.TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 13-27). New York, NY: Springer.
48.
LangerG.ColtonA. (2005). Looking at student work. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 22-26.
LeithwoodK.RiehlC. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In FirestoneW.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
52.
LevineT.MarcusA. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389-398.
53.
LittleJ. (2009). Looking at student work in the United States: A case of competing impulses in professional development. In DayC.SachsJ. (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 94-118). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
54.
LittleJ.CurryM. (2009). Structuring talk about teaching and learning: The use of evidence in protocol-based conversation. In EarlL.TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 29-42). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
55.
LittleJ.GearhartM.CurryM.KafkaJ. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 184-199.
56.
ManginM. (2006). Teacher leadership and instructional improvement: Teachers’ perspective. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 159-192). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
57.
MarshJ.PaneJ. F.HamiltonL. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170
58.
MayrowetzD.WeinsteinC. S. (1999). Sources of leadership for inclusive education: Creating schools for all children. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 423-449.
59.
McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
60.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
61.
MurnaneR.SharkeyN.BoudettK. (2005). Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 269-280.
62.
MurphyJ. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
63.
MurphyJ.ElliottS.GoldringE.PorterA. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of leadership behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27, 179-201.
64.
MurphyJ.SmylieM.MayrowetzD.Seashore LouisK. (2009). The role of the principal in fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and Management, 29, 181-214.
65.
NelsonT. (2008). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and growth. Should we be optimistic? Science Teacher Education, 93, 548-580.
66.
ParrJ.TimperleyH. (2008). Teachers, school and using evidence: Considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15, 57-71.
67.
PortinB.KnappM.DareffS.FeldmanS.RussellF.SamuelsonC.YehT. (2009, October). Leadership for learning improvement in urban schools. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
68.
PrintyS. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A Community of practice perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 187-226.
69.
RobinsonM.KannapelP.GujaratiJ.WilliamsH.OettingerA. (2008). A formative study of the implementation of inquiry team process in New York City Public Schools: 2007-2008 findings. New York, NY: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
70.
RobinsonV.LloydC.RoweK. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.
71.
SaundersW.GoldenbergC.GallimoreR. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1006-1033.
72.
SergiovanniT.CorballyJ. (1986). Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
73.
SharkeyN.MurnaneR. (2003). Learning from student assessment results: How can schools use assessment data to improve student achievement?Educational Leadership, 61(3), 77-81.
74.
SmylieM.Brownlee-ConyersJ. (1992). Teacher leadership and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 150-184.
75.
SnipesJ.HorwitzA.SogaK.CasserlyM. (2008). Beating the odds: An analysis of student performance and achievement gaps on state assessments. Results from the 2006-2007 school year. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
76.
SpillaneJ. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership and Management, 25, 383-397.
77.
SpillaneJ. (2009). Managing to lead: Reframing school leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 70-73.
78.
SteeleJ.BoudettK. (2008). The collaborative advantage. Educational Leadership, 66(4), 54-59.
79.
SupovitzJ.KleinV. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
80.
SupovitzJ.SirinidesP.MayH. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
81.
TimperleyH.AnnanB.RobinsonV. (2009). Successful approaches to innovation that have impacted on student learning in New Zealand. In NgC.RenshawP. (Ed.), Reforming learning: Concepts, issues, and practices in the Asia-pacific region (pp. 345-364). New York, NY: Springer.
82.
TimperleyH.ParrJ. (2004). Using evidence in teaching practice. Auckland, NZ: Hodder Moa Beckett Press.
83.
TimperleyH.ParrJ.BertaneesC. (2009). Promoting professional inquiry for improved outcomes for students in New Zealand. Professional development in Education, 35, 227-245.
84.
TimperleyH.RobinsonV. (2001). Achieving school improvement through challenging and changing teachers’ schema. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 281-300.
85.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86.
WaymanJ. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 295-308.
87.
WaymanJ. C.StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112, 549-571.
88.
WilsonS.BerneJ. (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.
89.
YinR. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
90.
YoungV. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521-548.
