This article examines teacher leader role development and definition by looking at one emergent model of distributed leadership: the hybrid teacher leader (HTL). HTLs are teachers whose official schedule includes both teaching K–12 students and leading teachers in some capacity. Participants included six HTLs across four school districts over 2 years, as well as their administrators. Extensive qualitative data were collected and subsequently analyzed, including interviews, on-site observations, and artifacts. Findings included a pervasive lack of role definition for the HTLs amid heightened organizational complexity, leading to numerous de facto definitions emerging. Conflicting de facto definitions led to diminished success for the HTLs, relationship deterioration, a reversion to professional development removed from the classroom, and a lack of capacity to account for HTL efficacy. The study concludes that for new teacher leaders to be successful, states and districts will need to much more clearly define roles and priorities and be specific about how budget-compensated teacher leader time is used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallockE. (2009). What makes some learning communities so effective, and how can I support my own? In CraigC., & DeretchinL. (Eds.), Teacher learning in small group settings: Teacher Education Yearbook17(pp. 40–53). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
BarnesC. (2002). Standards reform in high poverty schools: Managing conflict and building capacity.New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
BrooksJ., Jean-MarieG., NormoreA., & HodginsD. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408.
4.
BrooksJ., ScribnerJ., & EferakorhoJ. (2004). Teacher leadership in the context of whole school reform. Journal of School Leadership, 14(3), 242–265.
5.
Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession. (2007). Improving instruction through coaching.Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
6.
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. (2009). Leadership for learning improvements in urban schools.Seattle: University of Washington.
7.
CityE., ElmoreR., FiarmanS., & TeitelL. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
9.
CubanL. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
DanielsonC. (2007). The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 14–19.
11.
DonaldsonG. (2007). What do teachers bring to leadership?Educational Leadership, 65(1), 26–29.
12.
Drago-SeversonE. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional development leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70–125.
13.
ErlandsonD., HarrisE., SkipperB., & AllenS. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
EvansR. (1996). The human side of school change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
FairmanJ., & MackenzieS. (2010, May). Spheres of teacher leadership action for learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boulder, CO.
16.
FirestoneW., & MartinezC. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3–35.
17.
GallucciC. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 541–581.
18.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.
19.
GoldsteinJ. (2004). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 173–197.
20.
GoldsteinJ. (2010). Peer review and teacher leadership: Linking professionalism and accountability.New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
GoodwinM., BondN., & SummersE. J. (2010, May). Creating teacher leaders via a university and school district collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Boulder, CO.
22.
GordonS. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering communities for learning.Boston: Pearson Education.
23.
HatchT. (2000). What does it really take to break the mold? Rhetoric and reality in new American schools. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 561–589.
24.
HeckR., & HallingerP. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.
25.
JenningsJ., ScottC., & KoberN. (2009). Rethinking “restructuring”: Lessons learned from five states over five years. Education Week, 31(36), 30.
26.
KardosS., & JohnsonS. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experience with their colleagues. Teachers College Record, 109(9), 2083–2106.
27.
KatzenmeyerM., & MollerG. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28.
LattimerH. (2007). To help and not hinder. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 70–73.
ManginM., & StoelingaS. (Eds.). (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
MargolisJ. (2005). “Every day I spin these plates”: A case study of teachers amidst the charter phenomenon. Educational Foundations, 19(1-2), 87–109.
33.
MargolisJ., & DeuelA. (2009). Teacher leaders in action—Motivation, morality, and money. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(3), 264–286.
34.
MarrisP. (1986). Loss and change (rev. ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
35.
MayrowetzD., MurphyJ., LouisK., & SmylieM. (2007). Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 69–101.
36.
MilesM., & HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
PattonM. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
PounderD. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work related outcomes of group work enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 317–348.
39.
ReasonC., & ReasonL. (2007). Asking the right questions. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 36–40.
40.
ShulmanL. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning?Journal of Scholarship of Teaching, 1(1), 48–52.
41.
ShulmanL. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42.
SilvaD. Y., GimbertB., & NolanJ. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779–804.
43.
SmylieM., ConleyS., & MarksH. (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.
44.
SpillaneJ., BrianR., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 397–431.
45.
SpillaneJ., CamburnE., & ParejaA. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal's workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools6(1), 103–125.
46.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
ValliL., van ZeeE., Rennert-ArievP., MikeskaJ., Catlett-MuhammadS., & RoyP. (2006). Initiating and sustaining a culture of inquiry in a teacher leadership program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 97–114.
48.
York-BarrJ., & DukeK. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.
