Formal teacher leadership roles—such as coach and coordinator—have become a standard component of education reform efforts intended to support teachers’ instructional improvement efforts. Yet the culture of schools is widely understood to favor autonomy and egalitarianism, suggesting that classroom teachers may be resistant to peer leadership. This study examines how 12 elementary-level teacher leaders negotiate access to classrooms and encourage instructional change in light of teacher resistance. Findings suggest that teacher leaders make concessions that may ultimately limit their impact on instructional improvement. Also for these positions to contribute to instructional change, teacher leaders require the support of school administrators who offer guidance to teacher leaders and set expectations for teachers with regard to the enactment of teacher leadership roles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.New Haven: Yale University Press.
2.
ConleyS. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. In GrantG. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 17, pp. 225–266). Washington, DC: AERA.
3.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
CreswellJ. W., & MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
DonaldsonG. A. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
ElmoreR. K., & BurneyD. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
EvansR. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance and the real-life problems of innovation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
FirestoneW. A. (1996). Leadership roles or functions? In LeithwoodK., ChapmanJ., CorsonD., HalllngerP., & HartA. W. (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 2, pp. 395–418). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
FirestoneW. A., & BaderB. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or bureaucracy?Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
11.
FullanM. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
GronnP. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338.
13.
GulneyE. (2001). Coaching isn't just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 740–743.
14.
HartA. W. (1990a). Impacts of the school social unit on teacher authority during work redesign. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 503–532.
15.
HartA. W. (1990b). Work redesign: A review of literature for education reform. In BacharachS. B. (Ed.), Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 1, pp. 31–69). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
16.
HartA. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 9–28.
17.
HawleyW. D., & ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
HellerM. F., & FirestoneW. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65–86.
19.
HodgesH. L. B. (1996). Using research to inform practice in urban schools: Ten key strategies for success. Educational Policy, 10(2), 223–252.
20.
LeCompteM. D., & GoetzJ. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
21.
LichtenstelnG., McLaughlinM., & KnudsenJ. (1992). Teacher empowerment and professional knowledge. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching: 91st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 91, pt. 1, pp. 37–58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Loucks-HorsleyS. (1995). Professional development and the learner centered school. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 265–271.
24.
Loucks-HorsleyS., HewsonP. W., LoveN., & StilesK. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
25.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
NeufeldB., & RoperD. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity.Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute Program on Education and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
27.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
PoglincoS. M., BachA. J., HovdeK., RosenblumS., SaundersM., & SupovitzJ. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's Choice schools.Philadelphia: CPRE.
29.
PounderD. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317–348.
30.
RichardsonV., & PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). New York: Macmillan.
31.
SarasonS. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.”New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
SergiovanniT. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
SilvaD. Y., GimbertB., & NolanJ. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779–804.
34.
SmylieM. A. (1997). Research on teacher leadership: Assessing the state of the art. In BiddleB. J. (Ed.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 521–592). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35.
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; 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 101, pt. 1, pp. 162–188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
SmylieM., & DennyJ. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235–259.
37.
SmylieM. A., WenzelS. A., & FendtC. R. (2002). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Lessons on leadership for school development. In MurphyJ., & Dat-nowA. (Eds.), Leadership for school reform: Lessons from comprehensive school reform designs (pp. 135–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
38.
SpillaneJ., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
39.
TyackD., & TobinW. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453–479.
40.
WeiseR., & MurphyJ. (1995). SBM in historical perspective, 1900–1950. In MurphyJ., & BeckL. G. (Eds.), School-based management as school reform: Taking stock (pp. 93–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
