This article presents findings from a qualitative case study that examined the role of teacher leaders amid whole school reform. Findings suggest that leadership is ambiguous: a contested notion between principal and teacher(s) and among teachers as well. This ambiguity was manifest on the conceptual and operational levels and significantly affected the ways teachers operated as leaders. The article also describes the role and implications of whole school reform as a mediating factor in teachers’ work as leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BistaM. B., & GlasmanN. S. (1998). Principals’ perceptions of their approaches to organizational leadership: Revisiting Bolman and Deal. Journal of School Leadership, 8(1), 26–48.
2.
BlaseJ. (1991). Analysis and discussion: Some concluding remarks. In BlaséJ. (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 237–255). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1986). A nation prepared: Teaching for the 21st century. Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. New York: Author.
5.
Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). (2002). Ten common principles.Oakland, CA: CES National. Retrieved June 20, 2002, from http://www.essentialschools.org.
6.
CohenD. K., & BallD. L. (1999) Instruction, capacity, and improvement. CPRE Research Report Series. Retrieved April 2002 from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr43.pdf.
7.
CrowG., HausmanC., & ScribnerJ. P. (2002). Reshaping the principalship. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge. The 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Comprehensive models for school improvement: Finding the right match and making it work.Arlington, VA: Author.
10.
FieldingN. G., & LeeR. M. (1998). Computer analysis and qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.Bristol, PA: Falmer.
12.
FullanM., & HargreavesA. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school?New York: Teachers College, Columbia University
13.
GoertzM. E., FlodenR. E., & O'DayJ. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform: Volume I: Findings and conclusions.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
14.
GonzalezS., & LambertL. (2001). Teacher leadership in professional development schools: Emerging conceptions, identities, and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 11(1), 6–24.
15.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI: Author.
16.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader.Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 12, 2002, from http://www.iel.org/pubs.html.
17.
JaegerR. M. (Ed.). (1988). Complimentary research methods for research in education.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
18.
LeithwoodK., & LouisK. S. (1998). Organizational learning in schools.The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
19.
LeithwoodK., JantziD., & SteinbachR. (1998). Changing leadership for changing times.Philadelphia: Open University Press.
20.
LiebermanA., SaxlE. R., & MilesM. B. (2000). Teacher leadership: Ideology and practice. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 348–365). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
LouisK. S., KruseS. D., & MarksH. M. (1996). Schoolwide professional community. In NewmannF. M. A. (Ed.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
McPartlandJ. M., BalfanzR., & JordanW.J. (2002). Promising solutions for the least productive American high schools. In StringfieldS. & LandD. (Eds.), Educating at-risk students. The 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
MerriamS. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
MillerL., & O'SheaC. (1992). Learning to lead: Portraits of practice. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), The changing context of school teaching (pp. 197–211). Chicago: National Society of the Study of Education.
25.
MurphyJ., BeckL. G., CrawfordM., HodgesA., & McGauphyC. L. (2001). The productive high school: Creating personalized academic communities.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
26.
OgawaR. T., & BossertS. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243.
27.
OvandoM. N. (1996). Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Planning and Changing, 27(1/2), 30–44.
28.
PechmanE., & FiesterL. (1994). Implementing schoolwide projects: An idea book for educators.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.
29.
PounderD. G., OgawaR. T., & AdamsA. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide phenomenon: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 564–588.
30.
ScribnerJ. P. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238–266.
31.
ScribnerJ. P. (2003). Teacher learning in context: The special case of rural high school teachers. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(12). Retrieved June 6, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n12.
32.
ScribnerJ. P., HagerD., & WarneT. R. (2001). The paradox of professional community: A tale of two high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly37(1), 45–76.
33.
SergiovanniT.J. (1994). Building community in schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
SergiovanniT. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
ShenJ., & HsiehC. (1999). The instructional goals of the school leadership program: Future school leaders’ and educational leadership professors’ perspectives. Journal of School Leadership, 9(1), 79–91.
36.
ShulmanL. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
37.
SmylieM. A., & Brownlee-ConyersJ. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150–184.
38.
SmylieM. A., ConleyS., & MarksH. M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162–188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
SmylieM. A., & HartA. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 421–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
SpillaneJ. P., & LouisK. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge. The 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
WasleyP. M. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
