Districts play a key and relatively unexamined role in distributed leadership research. This article explores how leadership was distributed through a district structure designed to improve the quality of teaching by improving the quality of teacher evaluation. It examines peer assistance and review, a policy designed to address the key problems of traditional teacher evaluation by allowing administrators and teacher leaders to share accountability for evaluation processes and decisions. The article presents data from a peer assistance and review program in one urban district, detailing how the program distributed accountability for teacher quality across the district organization. The article extends previous work on distributed leadership by showing how the design of shared tasks can effectively distribute accountability. The article also extends previous work on distributed leadership by elucidating the democratic effects of that distribution. As such, the article addresses questions of instrumentality (i.e., how can district leaders design and implement a better teacher evaluation system?) and agency (i.e., what are the political implications of distributing formal authority for teacher evaluation out of the hands of administrators and into the hands of teachers?).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndersonG. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571–603.
3.
BennettN., WiseC., WoodsP., & HarveyJ. (2003). Distributed leadership.Oxford, United Kingdom: National College for School Leadership.
4.
BridgesE. M. (1986). The incompetent teacher: The challenge and the response.Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
5.
BridgesE. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher: Managerial responses.Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
6.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education. (1997). California standards for the teaching profession: A description of professional practice for California teachers.
7.
ChildressS., ElmoreR., GrossmanA. S., & KingC. (2006). Note on the PELP coherence framework. Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University.Boston: Harvard Business School.
8.
DanielsonC., & McGrealT. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9.
Darling-Hammond. (1984). The Toledo (Ohio) public school intern and intervention programs. In WiseA. E., Darling-HammondL., McLaughlinM. W., & BernsteinH. T. (Eds.), Case studies for teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices (pp. 119–166). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (1990). Teacher professionalism: Why and how? In LiebermanA. (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 25–50). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
EngestromY. (1996). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In ChaiklinS. & LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
13.
EnglundT. (1996). Are professional teachers a good thing? In GoodsonI. F. & HargreavesA. (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 75–87). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
14.
FreidsonE. (1986). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GallagherJ. J., LanierP., & KerchnerC. T. (1993). Toledo and Poway: Practicing peer review. In KerchnerC. T. & KoppichJ. E. (Eds.), A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
GoldsteinJ. (2003a). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 397–421. (Reprinted with apology: 26(2), 173–197)
17.
GoldsteinJ. (2003b). Teachers at the professional threshold: Distributing leadership responsibility for teacher evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05), 1475A.
18.
GoldsteinJ. (2007a). Debunking the fear of peer review: Combining supervision and evaluation and living to tell about it. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(4), 235–252.
19.
GoldsteinJ. (2007b). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113, 479–508.
20.
GoldsteinJ. (in press). Designing transparent teacher evaluation: The role of oversight panels for professional accountability. Teachers College Record.
21.
GronnP. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.
22.
HalversonR. R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37). Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n37/
23.
HalversonR. R., & ZoltnersJ. (2001). Distribution across artifacts: How designed artifacts illustrate school leadership practice.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
24.
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.
25.
HewittD. (2000). The Cincinnati plan. In BloomG. & GoldsteinJ. (Eds.), The peer assistance and review reader (pp. 115–121). Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.
26.
HollandP. E., & GarmanN. (2001). Toward a resolution of the crisis of legitimacy in the field of supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(2), 95–111.
27.
HunterM. (1988). Effecting a reconciliation between supervision and evaluation—A reply to Popham. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 275–279.
28.
KellyP. P. (1998). Teacher unionism and professionalism: An institutional analysis of peer review programs and the competing criteria for legitimacy.East Lansing: Michigan State University.
29.
KerchnerC. T., KoppichJ. E., & WeeresJ. G. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
LarsonM. S. (1979). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis.Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2000). The effect of different sources of leadership on student engagement in school. In RileyK. A. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Leadership for change and school reform: International perspectives (pp. 50–66). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
32.
LoupK. S., GarlandJ. S., EllettC. D., & RuguttJ. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 203–226.
33.
MayrowetzD. (2005, November). Perceptions and interpretations of distributed leadership: Implications for leadership development and school improvement.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.
34.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
MurrayC. E. (1998). Teacher peer review: Possibility or pipedream?Contemporary education, 69(4), 202–204.
36.
OgawaR. T., & BossertS. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243.
37.
PainterS. R. (2000). Principals’ perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 253–264.
38.
RogoffB. M. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
39.
SmylieM., 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, part I (pp. 162–188). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
40.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., & JitaL. (2000, April). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
42.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., ShererJ. Z., & ColdrenA. F. (2005). Distributing leadership. In ColesM. J. & SouthworthG. (Eds.), Developing leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow.New York: Open University Press.
43.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
44.
SpillaneJ. P., HalversonR., & DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of school leadership practice: Implications of a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
45.
SpillaneJ. P., ReisenB., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
46.
TuckerP. D. (1997). Lake Wobegon: Where all teachers are competent (Or, have we come to terms with the problem of incompetent teachers?). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 103–126.
47.
Van MaanenJ., & BarleyS. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365.
48.
VillaraigosaA., Strom-MartinV., & AlquistE. K. (1999). California Assembly Bill 1x. Introduced January 19, amended in assembly February 12 and 18.
49.
WasleyP. A. (1991). The practical work of teacher leaders: Assumptions, attitudes, and acrophobia. In LiebermanA. & MillerL. (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 158–183). New York: Teachers College Press.
50.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
WeickK., & McDanielJ. R. R. (1989). How professional organizations work: Implications for school organization & management. In SergiovanniT. J. & MooreJ. H. (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 330–355). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
52.
WiseA. E., Darling-HammondL., McLaughlinM. W., & BernsteinH. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
53.
WoodsP. (2003). Building on Weber to understand governance: Exploring the links between identity, democracy and “inner distance.”Sociology of Education, 37(1), 143–163.
54.
WoodsP. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3–26.
55.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
