Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol. 4 ... · Journal of Research for Educational...

Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol. 4, Number 1 http://www.education.uiowa.edu/jrel pp. 4474

44

Building Teacher Leadership Capacity through Educational Leadership Programs

Bobbie J. Greenlee, Ed.D. Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies University of South Florida

4202 E. Fowler Ave. EDU 162 Tampa, FL 33620 (813)9749574

[email protected]


Abstract: For real school change to occur, both teachers and administrators must understand

theoretically and practically “the nature of leadership and the complex systems in which

leadership is exercised” (Bolman & Deal, 1994), however teacher leaders receive little or no

preparation for leading. Inevitably, future administrators and teacher leaders must share the

particular knowledge and skills that are manifest as educational leadership. This study used

survey data to explore whether educational leadership (EDL) preparation programs enhance the

leadership skills of participating teachers. The results revealed that teacher leaders in the EDL

program gained opportunities for leadership and experienced increased support from their

principals to apply leadership skills. The findings suggest that there is a relationship between the

knowledge and skills acquired by EDL students and increased involvement in and support for

teacher leadership.

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/jrel

mailto:[email protected]


45


Rationale and Background

Administrators cannot, and should not, be the only leaders in a school. The pervasive

view of the principal as the sole instructional leader in school is inadequate and increasingly

difficult given the current demands for accountability and student learning results (Marsh, 2000;

Pellicer & Anderson, 1995; Smylie, Conley & Marks, 2002). The implication of teacher

leadership for schools exists around a shared leadership model in an empowering learning

community. However, the absence of a clear concept of teacher leadership limits collective

action to effectively change schools and improve student learning.

Teacher leadership has been advanced as an essential component of successful school

reform and the professionalization of teachers (Lieberman, Saxl & Miles, 2000). In order to

maximize student learning, teachers must assume roles of leadership and take on more

responsibility for schoolwide change (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Muijs & Harris, 2003).

Even though a number of authors have argued that teachers are a source of leadership within

schools, there is a lack of consensus around a clear definition of teacher leadership. For example,

Troen and Boles (1994) characterize teacher leadership as a collaborative effort in which

teachers develop expertise and promote professional development to improve instruction to all

students. Wasley (1991), however, provides that while teacher leaders benefit from collaborative

arrangements they also have “the ability to encourage colleagues to change, to do things they

wouldn’t ordinarily consider without the influence of the leader” (p. 23). Similarly, Katzenmeyer

and Moller (2001) assert that “teachers, who are leaders lead within and beyond the classroom,

identify with and contribute to a community of teacher learners and leaders, and influence others

towards improved educational practice” (p. 5). ChildsBowen, Moller and Scrivner (2000)



46

proposed that “teachers are leaders when they function in professional learning communities to

affect student learning; contribute to school improvement; inspire excellence in practice; and

empower stakeholders to participate in educational improvement” (p. 28). Moreover, John

Gabriel (2005) describes teacher leaders as those who influence school culture, build and

maintain a successful team, and equip other potential teacher leaders to improve student

achievement.

A number of studies represent a range of understandings about the roles of teacher

leaders indicating that in both a formal and informal sense teachers engage in important

leadership functions. Teacher leaders take part in schoolwide decisionmaking (Hart, 1995;

Paulu & Winters, 1998); mentor teachers (Fessler & Ungaretti, 1994; Hart, 1995); develop

curriculum (Fessler & Ungaretti, 1994; Paulu & Winters, 1998); facilitate professional growth of

teachers (Gabriel, 2005; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Smylie & Denny, 1990; participate in

action research (Ash & Persall, 2000); foster more collaborative working arrangements (Blase &

Anderson, 1995); and influence school change (Day & Harris, 2002). A study by Miller and

O’Shea (1992) found that teacher leaders are distinguished by their knowledge, experience,

vision, and respect for children. In addition, Miles, Saxl and Lieberman (1988) report that

teacher leaders build trust and rapport, make organizational diagnoses, manage resources,

coordinate work, demonstrate expertise, and share knowledge with others.

Studies have found that teachers participating in decisionmaking and collaborative

teacherprincipal leadership contribute to school effectiveness, teaching quality, and

improvement in student performance (Glover, Miller, Gambling, Gough & Johnson, 1999;

Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Marks & Louis, 1997; Ovando, 1996; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994).

Similarly, several studies concluded that empowered teachers and distributed leadership impact



47

student performance as well as the teacher leader’s own professional learning (Lieberman, Saxl,

& Miles, 2000; Silins & Mulford, 2002; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004). Furthermore,

when the collective capabilities of teachers are brought together to deal with complex problems,

manage ambiguous tasks, and develop new courses of action then their commitment to the

profession increases (Barth 2001; Smylie & BrownleeConyers, 1992).

A challenge for teacher leadership is the bureaucratic organizational structure of schools.

Organizations, from a technical rational perspective, exist to achieve welldefined goals by

applying formal structures and processes that prescribe roles and role relationships (Owens,

2004). The technical rational side of school advocates a traditionally organized institution held

together by fairly applied authority and accountability for achieving results (Deal & Peterson,

1994; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Teacher leadership emerges as an essential component of school

improvement within this traditional environment of formal organizational roles that define

competence (knowing about educational leading) and authority (formal leadership roles).

However, teachers are “almost never provided with lenses to help them understand the nature of

leadership and the complex systems in which leadership is exercised” (Bolman & Deal, 1994).

Teacher leadership is not about empowering teachers by merely decentralizing decision

making authority. Rather, it is about mobilizing the frontline forces by increasing teachers’

access to resources, information and expertise in order to positively affect school change

(Hallinger & Richardson, 1988). The practice of teacher leadership is a shared and collective

effort that establishes the expectation for all teachers to be leaders at various times (Muijs &

Harris, 2003). Central in describing the specifics of teacher leadership is the idea that leading is

not restricted to formal positions, but is distributed to the entire educational community. A

distributive leadership model emphasizes a perspective on “how leadership practice is distributed



48

among positional and informal leaders as well as their followers” (Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond,

2003, p.16). Accordingly, teacher leadership for schools thrives when leadership is distributed in

democratic learning communities.

In an article that provides examples of teacher leaders who seize opportunities to improve

educational experiences, take responsibility for their own growth, and coordinate resources to

advance student success, Deborah Carr (1997) promoted "collegial leadership" as active

participation and informed decisionmaking by all education colleagues within the school.

However, there is little preparation for teachers and administrators to work together. Carr

asserted that frustration and dissatisfaction of many teachers is rooted in their lack of

understanding of the school functions beyond the classroom, such as budgeting, scheduling, and

so on. At the same time, it seemed that many administrators lacked knowledge to be curriculum

and instructional leaders.

In a study of continuously high performing schools, Linda Lambert (2005) noted that

those schools had high leadership capacity, which she defines as “broadbased, skillful

participation in the work of leadership” (p. 63). She found that as schools build leadership

capacity, principals and teacher leaders become more alike than different as teachers begin to

initiate action, take more responsibility for school effectiveness, frame problems, and seek

solutions. This is consistent with Sergiovanni’s (2001) notion of leadership density. He argues

that high leadership density means that many people work collaboratively, are trusted with

information, participate in decisionmaking, and contribute to creation and transfer of

knowledge. However, all too often, teachers lack the educational leadership knowledge and skills

that will make them successful school leaders.



49

Sherrill (1999) reported that the teacher leadership roles, called for in current reform

efforts, needed greater definition and more purposeful preparation. In identifying the leadership

skills required of teacher leaders, Sherrill (1999) established core expectations which included

demonstrating exemplary classroom instruction, knowing theories and research of teaching and

learning, understanding theories of adult development, exhibiting knowledge of clinical

supervision and procedures that promote effective classroom practice, cultivating desired

dispositions among teachers, and guiding colleagues through reflective and inquiry oriented

techniques. In a study by Dierks and colleagues (as cited in YorkBarr & Duke, 2004) teacher

leaders preferred content knowledge focused on organizational development and change,

reporting that they wanted to learn more about school finance and budgets, school law,

multicultural education, educational research, organizational change processes, and shared

decision making. More than a decade later, DiRanna and LoucksHorsley (2001) similarly

claimed that “teacher leaders must develop expertise in organization design, change theory, adult

learning, management skills, decision making, public relations and handholding.”

Principal’s Role

The relationship between principals and teachers is situated in a traditional hierarchical

structure of bureaucratic management. A number of researchers have suggested that the primary

obstacle to constructing a more collaborative leadership model is the teacher/principal

relationship which is embedded in the tradition and history of public schools. Sarason argues that

“schools will remain intractable to desired reform as long as we avoid confronting these existing

power relationships” (1990, p. 5). Still, the fact remains, that the principal holds a key position in

the school hierarchy and teacher leadership capacity is dependent on the attitudes and abilities of



50

school administrators to create conditions which are conducive towards an egalitarian model of

leadership (Lambert, 1998).

However, the prevailing discussions about teacher leadership leave many issues

unaddressed. For example, one cannot ignore the strong norms of isolation, conformity and

autonomy operating in schools that make teacher leadership difficult to implement (Barth, 2001;

Little, 1995; Lieberman, 1988. Furthermore, distributed leadership structures may place teachers

with little or no formal power on a comparative standing with administrators who hold

considerable positional power. It should not come as a surprise then that the extent to which

leadership is distributed may be a function of the attitude and inclination of the school principal

(Hallinger & Heck, 1999; Lambert, 1998). Consequently, in order for schools to be leadership

rich, the traditional roles of principals and teachers must be renegotiated through knowledge. In

essence, if teachers are to be empowered in democratic learning communities then formal

preparation for leadership should include teachers.

Educational Leadership Programs

Educational Leadership programs in colleges and universities are designed to prepare

credentialed school administrators. The emphasis, however, is on preparing candidates for formal

leadership positions in educational organizations. Guided by recent calls for reform, educational

leadership programs focus on team building, goal setting, collaborative decisionmaking, conflict

resolution (Crews & Weakley, 1995), in addition to an increased emphasis on improving student

outcomes (CambronMcCabe, 1993). Many programs require students to go through the

preparation experience in cohorts, enhancing meaningful and relevant learning as well as

fostering a sense of community (Barnett, Bason, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000; Hill, 1995; Kraus &

Cordeiro, 1995; Norris & Barnett, 1994). Significant internship experiences, where students



51

integrate practice with new knowledge and receive mentoring from practicing administrators, are

among the most highly valued program experiences (Krueger & Milstein, 1995).

The national call for accountability of educational institutions has resulted in standards

based reform efforts of educational leadership preparation programs. The initiatives of the

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and the Educational Leadership

Constituent Council (ELCC) are articulated as professional standards for administrator

preparation programs. These standards for educational leadership programs call for preparation

of school leaders who have the knowledge and ability to: (1) facilitate the development,

articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported

by the school community; (2) promote a positive school culture, provide an effective

instructional program, apply best practice to student learning, and design comprehensive

professional growth plans for staff; (3) manage the organization, operations, and resources in a

way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment; (4) collaborate with

families and other community members, respond to diverse community interests and needs, and

mobilize community resources; (5) act with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner; (6)

understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social economic, legal, and cultural

context; and (7) participate in an extensive internship. Preparation focuses primarily on

developing school leaders for the most common administrative positions in elementary and

secondary schools and requires demonstration of professional competence through supervised

clinical practice (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002). Based on review

of the literature, the need for specific preparation for aspiring school administrators has been

recognized and many educational leadership programs have heeded calls for reform creating

comprehensive programs that prepare instructional leaders who can positively impact student



52

performance. Despite the programmatic efforts to prepare transformative leaders there appears to

be little or no provision for training future principals to expand leadership capacity in schools,

and certainly little, if any, provision for training teacher leaders.

Traditionally, teachers who want to remain in the classroom and pursue graduate degrees

enroll in curriculum and instruction programs, while those who want to be school principals

enroll in educational leadership programs. However, many of the participants in educational

leadership programs wish to assume more active roles in education reform and school renewal as

teacher leaders without moving to administration. Advocating for truly democratic leadership

structures, Hackney and Henderson (1999) proposed discontinuing the separate graduate

education of future administrators and teachers asserting, “If inquirybased democratic school

leadership is to be made operational in the schools, both teachers and administrators must

understand theoretically and practically what that will mean” (p. 72). Further, the distributed

leadership perspective suggests that development of knowledge and expertise for leadership

should be dispersed within the school community (Spillane, et al., 2003). Based on this and other

studies (e.g., McCay, Flora, Hamilton & Riley, 2001), it might be expected that aspiring

administrators and teacher leaders may require very similar practical and theoretical knowledge

bases.

Inevitably, future administrators and teacher leaders must share the particular knowledge

and skills that are manifest as educational leadership. Thus, they might be educated together

without the barriers of traditional university programming with its emphasis on the continuing

role of the principal as the solitary instructional leader. Consequently, rather than imagining

more ways to lure teachers into administration, we might concentrate on how to redefine the



53

roles and responsibilities of administrators and teachers and reconceptualize school leadership as

a whole.

The purpose of this study was to consider whether the leadership skills acquired by

teachers in an educational leadership program facilitate or enhance teacher leadership capacity in

schools. The research questions that guide this investigation are:

• What teacher leadership dynamics occur and/or are enhanced as students engage

successfully in an Educational Leadership program?

• How do principals accept and accommodate Educational Leadership students as

teacher leaders?

• Can the knowledge base and pedagogy of an administrator preparation program foster

and/or impact teacher leadership?

Assumptions and Limitations

It may very well be that Educational Leadership programs cannot make leaders out of

people who are not already leaders. Essentially, it is assumed that EDL students are already

leaders in their schools. In fact, all of the teacher participants in this study stated that they

believed they were teacher leaders. This assertion is bolstered by Dewey (1933/1960) who

argued that the role of teaching itself implies leadership because “in reality the teacher is the

intellectual leader of a social group…not in virtue of official position, but because of wider and

deeper knowledge and matured experience” (p. 273).

It is important to consider several limitations when reading and evaluating this study.

This study is exploratory and any implications from its findings are speculative. This

investigation is limited in that it used teacher and administrator perceptions to capture what they

do in practice. This approach may provide only a very rough approximation of actual practice.



54

Additionally, generalizations from this study should be made with caution because the research

was conducted only with teachers who are currently enrolled as EDL students in one state

university and their school principals. The experiences and perceptions of this group may vary

from students in other educational leadership programs. Additionally, teachers and their

administrators volunteered to complete the survey. It is possible that those who volunteered were

more positively disposed to a form of shared leadership or to this particular educational

leadership program.

Sample

The data for this analysis are derived from a survey administered to Educational

Leadership students in a large state university and their school principals in the spring and fall of

2004. The sample was purposefully selected to capture perceptions from EDL students and their

principals. Surveys were administered to 84 EDL students enrolled in educational leadership

courses in fall and spring of 2004. In order to promote a higher return rate, the surveys were

administered in class. Participation of the students was voluntary and 62 (74%) useable

responses were received. Each student was asked to deliver a packet to their own school

principal containing the survey and a cover letter describing the study and requesting the

principal’s participation. The school principal was to return the completed survey in an enclosed

selfaddressed postage paid envelope. Of the 54 packets taken by students to deliver to

principals, 21 (39%) were returned.

Demographic data were collected only from the Educational Leadership students and not

from the school principals who participated in the study. Slightly more than 70% of the

respondents were female, with 58% of them teaching in elementary schools, 27% in middle

schools, and 14% in high schools. Respondents' ages were rather evenly distributed across the



55

middle two of the four age categories (i.e., 2130, 3140, 4150, 5160), with approximately 38%

of participants in each of the 3140 and 4150 age categories. Approximately 12.5% were in the

2130 age category and 11% were in the 5160 age category. The average years of teaching

experience was 7.9 (R=1.522), and respondents had completed an average of 21 semester credit

hours (7 courses) in an Educational Leadership program.

Methodology

A survey instrument was developed to collect data on EDL students’ level of

involvement and principal support for teacher leadership. EDL students’ involvement was

measured with a 17item survey of teacher leadership activities identified in the literature (Table

1). Participants were asked to indicate the perceived increase in involvement of EDL students for

each of the teacher leadership activities since participating in the Educational Leadership

program. Principal support was measured with a 12item survey of principal behaviors identified

in the literature that support teacher leadership. Participants rated whether levels of involvement

and support had remained the same or had increased using a twopoint scale. The dichotomous

scale is an attempt to measure the prevalence of involvement or support indicators only, rather

than complicate the measurement process by attempting to capture estimates of varying

classifications of involvement and support on a continuous scale.

Table 1. Teacher Leader Actions Reported in the Literature

Teacher Leader Actions Literature

Professional teacher organizations Paulu & Winters, 1998

Decision making Berry & Ginsberg, 1990; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Paulu

& Winters, 1998; Smylie, 1995; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994

Plan school improvement DarlingHammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995; Heller &

Firestone, 1995; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001



56

Redesign instruction based on student

assessment Barth, 2001

Share ideas with colleagues Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001

Be a mentor to new teachers DarlingHammond et al., 1995; Gabriel, 2005; Sherrill, 1999

Help make personnel decisions Barth, 2001; Gabriel, 2005

Create partnerships with community Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001

Select professional development Barth, 2001

Present a workshop to colleagues Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001

Influence school budgeting Barth, 2001

Collaboration with peers Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Pellicer & Anderson, 1995

Lead school committees Gabriel, 2005; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001

Reflect on your own practice DarlingHammond et al., 1995

Initiate school activities Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001

Design school policy Barth, 2001

Responses of individual EDL students and principals were aggregated to analyze the

overall frequency of responses regarding levels of involvement for each aspect of teacher

leadership measured by the surveys. Tables indicating the percentages were created to provide a

sense of the proportions of EDL students and principals reporting increased involvement. An

independent sample twotailed Ttest was used to compare the mean values of the teachers’ and

principals’ responses. Comparisons with a pvalue of less than .05 were considered significant.

In addition, EDL students were asked to discuss in openended responses (a) barriers to

teacher leadership; (b) contributions of the EDL program to development and performance of

teacher leadership activities; and (c) specific course activities or opportunities that prepared them

for teacher leadership. School principals responded to openended questions about (a) whether



57

EDL students differ from other teacher leaders; (b) whether they were more likely to include the

EDL students in decision making; and (c) the advantages in having teacher leaders that have

acquired educational leadership knowledge and skills.

To analyze and interpret the openended responses from the surveys the methods based

on the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) were employed. Steps for constant comparative

analysis aided in identifying patterns, coding of data, development of meaningful categories, and

generation of themes from these categories in order to reveal broad topics. In coding the data, the

author and a peer university researcher, whose areas of expertise concern the teaching

profession, educational leadership, and school reform, independently reviewed the material for

emerging themes and patterns. The researchers then compared notes for verification, clarification

and elaboration of meanings and patterns revealed in the data. The use of peer review facilitated

logical data analysis and increased the trustworthiness of the interpretations (McMillan &

Schumacher, 1997). Triangulation of survey results with the openended responses provides

additional support for the trustworthiness of the data (Merriam, 1998).

Findings

A survey asked Educational Leadership (EDL) students to respond to statements

regarding their involvement in leadership decisions and actions at their school. The surveys

contained statements of teacher leader actions based on the literature, shown in Table 1, asking

them to indicate whether they felt there was increased involvement or the same level of

involvement since participating in an Educational Leadership Program.

Results, displayed in Table 2, show that more than half of the EDL students, indicated

hereafter as teachers, reported increased involvement in the areas of decision making (62.5%);

collaboration with peers (60.9%); reflection on practice (59.3%); share ideas with colleagues



58

(57.7%); planning school improvement (56.5%); lead school committees (56.2%); and initiate

school activities (53.1%). The teacher leader activities with the smallest percent of teachers (less

than 30%) reporting increased involvement were creating partnerships with community (26.6%)

and influencing the school budget (28.1%).

On the other hand, Table 2 shows that over 70% of the principals reported seeing

increased involvement in planning school improvement; sharing ideas with colleagues; selecting

professional development; reflection on practice; decision making; collaborating with peers; and

leading school committees. Few of the principals, with a commensurate number of teachers,

reported increased involvement in the areas of participating in professional teacher

organizations; creating partnerships with community; designing school policy; and influencing

school budget.

In comparing the responses of principals and teachers, noticeably higher percentages

(66.6 to 77.7 %) of principals reported increased involvement of teachers who are currently in or

have completed an EDL program for eight of the sixteen teacher leader activities listed. Of those

eight areas, the majority of teachers and administrators agreed on the increased involvement at

their schools in six of the areas: decision making; planning school improvement; sharing ideas

with colleagues; collaboration with peers; leading school committees; and, reflecting on their

own practice.

It seemed, however, that teacher and administrator perceptions, reported in Table 2,

differed on increased involvement by the teachers in the selection of professional development

activities and in providing professional development inservices or workshops. A majority of the

principals (77.7 and 66.6% respectively) reported that there was increased involvement of



59

teachers in these areas, while the majority of teachers (54.6%) reported the same level of

involvement.

Table 2. Percentage of teacher responses to “How much more involved are you in the following activities now than you were before beginning the Educational Leadership Program?” and principal responses to "Thinking about teachers who are currently in or have completed an Educational Leadership Program, how much more involved are they in the following activities now than before they began the program."

Teacher Leader Actions Percent reporting same level of involvement

Percent reporting increased involvement

Teachers Principals Teachers Principals

Professional teacher organizations 65.6 50.0 32.8 38.8

Decision making 37.5 27.7 62.5 72.2

Plan school improvement 43.7 22.2 56.2 77.7

Redesign instruction based on student assessment 48.4 38.8 50.0 50.0

Share ideas with colleagues 42.1 22.2 57.7 77.7

Be a mentor to new teachers 54.6 38.8 45.3 55.5

Help make personnel decisions 59.3 44.4 40.5 55.5

Create partnerships with community 73.4 66.6 26.6 27.7

Select professional development 54.6 22.2 43.7 77.7

Present a workshop to colleagues 54.6 33.3 45.2 66.6

Influence school budgeting 71.8 77.7 28.1 16.6

Collaboration with peers 37.5 27.7 60.9 72.2

Lead school committees 43.8 27.7 56.2 72.2

Reflect on your own practice 40.5 22.2 59.3 77.7

Initiate school activities 46.9 55.5 53.1 44.4

Design school policy 60.9 72.2 39.0 27.7



60

Mean scores (Table 3) represent the results of teacher and principal selections on a two

point scale indicating no change in involvement (1) and increased involvement (2). Overall,

teachers (M=1.48) and principals (M=1.55) indicated increased involvement of EDL students in

teacher leadership activities. The slightly higher means suggest the principals noticed the

teachers’ increased involvement since participating in an educational leadership program (mean

difference = 0.06). The items with the lowest means (R=1.16 – 1.39) from both teachers and

principals related to involvement in professional teaching organizations, creating home and

community partnerships, and influencing the school budget.

The results of the ttest analysis, summarized in Table 3, present statistically significant

differences (p < .05) between teachers’ and principals’ perceptions regarding increased

involvement for EDL students as teacher leaders. Table 3 shows clear agreement between

teachers’ and principals’ on nearly every item concerning EDL students increased involvement

in teacher leadership actions. However, responses to the survey item about increased

involvement in selecting professional development revealed a statistically significant difference

with principals (1.75) attributing higher levels of involvement than teachers (1.49). Additionally,

two items, planning for school improvement and helping to make personnel decisions, presented

large differences between teacher (1.55 and 1.32 respectively) and principal (1.75 and 1.55

respectively) responses that approached significant levels.

Table 3. Twotailed Ttest results for teacher responses to “Howmuch more involved are you in the following activities now than you were before beginning the Educational Leadership Program?” and principal responses to "Thinking about teachers who are currently in or have completed an Educational Leadership Program, how much more involved are they in the following activities now than before they began the program."

Teacher Principal Item content Mean SD Mean SD pvalue

Professional teacher organizations 1.24 0.45 1.39 0.50 0.26

Decision making 1.62 0.50 1.70 0.47 0.50



61

Plan school improvement 1.55 0.51 1.75 0.44 0.08

Redesign instruction based on student assessment 1.51 0.50 1.50 0.51 0.93

Share ideas with colleagues 1.73 0.51 1.75 0.44 0.83

Be a mentor to new teachers 1.54 0.48 1.63 0.50 0.45

Help make personnel decisions 1.32 0.48 1.55 0.51 0.08

Create partnerships with home 1.37 0.42 1.26 0.45 0.37

Create partnerships with community 1.29 0.38 1.26 0.45 0.85

Select professional development 1.49 0.50 1.75 0.44 0.03

Present a workshop to colleagues 1.46 0.50 1.65 0.49 0.14

Influence school budgeting 1.23 0.43 1.16 0.37 0.47

Collaboration with peers 1.69 0.51 1.70 0.47 0.94

Lead school committees 1.60 0.50 1.75 0.44 0.18

Reflect on their own practice 1.71 0.51 1.70 0.47 0.90

Initiate school activities 1.58 0.50 1.50 0.51 0.52

Design school policy 1.31 0.47 1.30 0.47 0.91

Note. Highlighted items are statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 4 shows the percentage of teacher and principal responses about items assessing

whether principal support has increased for teachers since beginning the educational leadership

program. Teachers indicated that their school principals more often encouraged them to gain new

knowledge and skills (68.8%), offered resources (65.6%), presented occasions to share ideas and

strategies (67.2%), recognized them for leadership roles (67.2%), and encouraged them to help

other teachers (62.5%). In contrast, more than half of the teachers indicated no change in support

for trying new ways of teaching (62.5%) and celebrating the success of colleagues (57.8%).



62

Clearly there was strong agreement among the principals (R=61.1% 94.4%) as to their

overall increased support for EDL students as teacher leaders (Table 4). Nearly all of the

principals (94.4%) reported increased support for opportunities to present new ideas and

strategies, time for leadership activities, as well as occasions to work as partners with

administrators and to have work focused conversations.

Table 4. Percentage of teacher responses to "How would you characterize the level of support you receive from your principal as a teacher leader since beginning the Educational Leadership program?" and principal responses to "How would you characterize the level of support you offer to teachers who are currently in or have completed the Educational Leadership Program?"

Support actions Percent reporting

same level of support Percent reporting increased support

Teachers Principals Teachers Principals

Encouraged to help other teachers 35.9 5.5 62.5 88.8

Provided opportunities to share ideas and

strategies 32.8 0 67.2 94.4

Encouraged to gain new knowledge and skills 28.1 5.5 68.8 88.8

Recognition for leadership roles 32.8 5.5 67.2 88.8

Celebrate success of colleagues 57.8 27.7 40.6 61.1

Encouraged to try new ways of teaching 62.5 5.5 37.5 88.8

Conversation with administrators is focused on students

46.8 5.5 51.5 94.4

Solicit opinions from teachers 43.7 11.1 56.2 83.3

Provide opportunities for professional

development 43.7 5.5 56.2 88.8

Provided time for leadership activities 43.7 5.5 56.2 94.4

Teachers work with administrators as partners 42.2 5.5 57.8 94.4

Provided resources 34.4 22.2 65.6 72.2



63

Mean scores (Table 5) represent the results of teacher and principal selections on a two

point scale indicating no change in principal support (1) and increased principal support (2).

Both teachers (R= 1.31 – 1.68) and principals (R= 1.71 – 2.0) indicated remarkably high levels

of increased support for teacher leadership activities. In contrast, the greatest differences were

between principals’ and teachers’ reports on levels of support by the principal, described in

Table 5. For all twelve items, principals (M= 1.91) reported higher levels of increased support

than did the teachers (M= 1.56). Statistical evidence showed principals’ perceptions of their

support were significantly higher than teachers’ perceptions on ten of the twelve items.

Table 5. Twotailed Ttest results for teacher responses to "How would you characterize the level of support you receive from your principal as a teacher leader since beginning the Educational Leadership program?" and principal responses to "How would you characterize the level of support you offer to teachers who are currently in or have completed the Educational Leadership Program?"

Teacher Principal Item content Mean SD Mean SD pvalue

Encouraged to help other teachers 1.64 0.48 1.95 0.23 0.00

Provided opportunities to share ideas and strategies 1.62 0.49 2.00 0.00 0.00

Encouraged to gain new knowledge and skills 1.68 0.47 1.94 0.24 0.01

Recognition for leadership roles 1.60 0.50 1.94 0.24 0.00

Celebrate success of colleagues 1.43 0.50 1.71 0.47 0.05

Encouraged to try new ways of teaching 1.31 0.47 1.94 0.24 0.00

Conversation with administrators is focused on students 1.49 0.51 1.94 0.24 0.00

Solicit opinions from teachers 1.60 0.50 1.89 0.32 0.01

Provide opportunities for 1.57 0.50 1.94 0.24 0.00



64

professional development

Provided time for leadership activities 1.57 0.50 1.95 0.23 0.00

Teachers work with administrators as partners 1.55 0.50 1.95 0.23 0.00

Provided resources 1.62 0.49 1.78 0.43 0.22

Note. Highlighted items are statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

Open ended Responses

When asked about how involvement in the EDL program has contributed to their ability

as a teacher leader, 54.7% of the participants reported that the program was an important factor

but not in a primary way, while 31.3% reported the program was a major factor in contributing to

their ability as a teacher leader. Teachers' comments from openended questions indicated that

the program afforded new knowledge, increased confidence, broader perspective of the system

and greater understanding of the role of the principal. A few of the teachers stated that they now

had more oneonone time with their principals.

Teachers (89%) also reported their teacher leadership roles were enhanced through EDL

course activities that incorporated reading and reporting on research literature, shadowing or

interviewing principals, case studies, and field projects. In addition, several of the teachers listed

specific courses, particularly school law and educational finance, had prepared them for teacher

leadership.

The openended comments from principals indicated they related to EDL teachers

differently and were more likely to involve them in decisionmaking. The veracity of the

principals’ claims of increased involvement in decisionmaking is clearly supported by the report

from the majority of the teachers (62.5%). Several representative statements presented by the



65

principals indicated these teachers: are more perceptive when analyzing situations; focus more

on schoolwide issues; tend to see a bigger picture; ask more questions and have fresh ideas; are

starting to 'see' things as an administrator; are willing to discuss different points of view; bring

fresh insights to difficult issues; are more interested in the total operation of the school; are more

reflective of their own teaching strategies; and think more globally and about what is best for the

entire school.

On the other hand, analysis of openended responses from teachers suggested that they

were gaining avenues for leadership because their participation in the educational leadership

“[program] provided credentials to administrators so more information could be shared;” “when

my principal knew I was in [Educational Leadership] he provided leadership roles;” and

“[course] projects provided opportunities to try new leadership experiences.” It may be that these

EDL students were able to overcome some of the barriers between the traditional teacher and

administrative roles as they developed credibility and expertise.

Conclusions and Implications

Teacher leadership is not about empowering teachers. Rather, it is about organizing the

largely unused leadership capital in teachers to positively affect school change. The practice of

teacher leadership is a shared and collective endeavor that establishes the possibility for all

teachers to become leaders at various times. The focus of this investigation is the relationship of

formal school leadership preparation, particularly as developed in educational leadership

programs, to involvement in teacher leadership activities and to increased principal support for

involvement.

There are some important conclusions that can be drawn from this study that may have

implications for a teacher leadership knowledge base. Teachers involved in EDL programs begin



66

to experience teacher leadership differently. From these ranks emerge school leaders with

considerable knowledge in fiscal and personnel management, legal issues, design and

development of curricula, delivery and assessment of instruction and contextual understanding of

leadership and policy development. This study provides some support for the relative merits of

teacher leaders obtaining the school leadership “knowhow” offered in educational leadership

programs. Results suggest there is a relationship between knowledge and skills acquired by EDL

students and increased involvement in and support for teacher leadership. However, involvement

and support of teacher leaders may be moderated by the principals’ perceptions of the teachers’

capacity and willingness to serve in leadership roles. EDL students, as result of course activities,

may be perceived by principals as less passive and more willing to be involved in teacher leader

activities. In addition, it seems that involvement of teachers in leadership activities is more

dependent on the teacherprincipal relationship than on leadership expertise of the teacher.

While many of the teachers (48%) identified administrators as a barrier to effective

teacher leadership in their schools, as EDL students, these teacher participants indicated that

through their educational leadership studies they were provided structured access and avenues

for making connections with their administrators in productive ways. Teachers reported that

principals supported them, as teacher leaders, with time and resources. Both principals and

teachers agreed that the educational leadership program increased their knowledge of schooling

and enhanced their leadership capacity. At the same time, these students engaged in activities

that put their knowledge to use in practical terms and afforded them opportunities to exhibit their

leadership skills.

In the context of this study, the teacher leaders as aspiring administrators were

developing knowledge and skills in the day to day operations of schools, yet they remained less



67

involved in schoolwide strategic decisions around policy, personnel and budgets. Similarly,

previous research found principals tended not to involve teachers in schoolwide managerial

decisions (Taylor & Bogotch, 1994). It may be that principals in this study, as in other studies,

prefer to run certain school functions without the involvement or influence of teachers. Then

again, teachers may still lack knowledge and skills to participate in these areas.

Unfortunately, as teacher participants learned and practiced their skills and knowledge,

they experienced resistance from other faculty and feelings of alienation. Activities in the EDL

program promoted increased contact with the principal which seemed to alienate EDL students

from their peers. The principals’ behaviors toward EDL students may have been interpreted as

favoritism. According to Roland Barth (2001), sometimes teacher colleagues exhibit an

“inhospitable” ethos to teacher leadership or believe that the teacher leader receives unmerited

recognition from the administration. For many teachers (48%) in this study this was a barrier to

teacher leadership. At the same time, in the context of this study, participants reported that their

administrators began viewing them in a more collegial manner as they participated in school

improvement activities. Does the increase of the particular knowledge and skills of schools and

school leadership alienate one from their peers? Does administrator acceptance mean rejection

from peers?

Teacher participants shared through their comments that as they became more involved in

leadership activities they felt more confident and empowered. In fact, the EDL course activities

pushed these teacher leaders into associations and dealings with the administration on issues

beyond the scope of their regular teaching duties. The question remains, however, whether these

teachers, as EDL students, were included more because of their increasing leadership knowledge

and skills or because of their desire to make a difference and an increasing sense that they could.



68

Similarly, Taylor and Tashakkori (1997) argued that teachers that were high in participation and

desire were empowered.

There were differences between the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of support and

it seems likely that the principals overestimated their own support of EDL students. The

principals’ overdeveloped notion of their support for teacher leadership may be due to their own

practical conceptions of what teacher leadership is and how to shape it. In general, a critical

condition for teacher leadership is the extent to which school principals arrange structures to

make leadership opportunities available to teachers. Even so, the significant differences between

teacher and principal perceptions regarding principal support beg the question of how the

concept of support for teacher leadership is understood and deployed in this context. In addition,

the principals’ perception of support may be moderated by the EDL course activities that require

the teacher, as EDL student, to work more closely with the administrators. Consequently, there

are implications here also for the school principals’ support for EDL students as aspiring school

administrators. This issue requires further investigation into the quality of the principals’

investment in teacher leadership as well as in future school administrators.

It seems obvious the potential of teacher leadership remains underdeveloped. Perhaps the

problem here is the notion of “distributing” leadership roles and responsibilities without

distributing the necessary knowledge and skills to influence real school improvement efforts.

While educational leadership preparation programs deal primarily with preparing school

principals, the knowledge and skills that facilitate working in democratic learning environments

offered in these programs are not provided to teachers in their formal preparation programs.

School improvement efforts may be enhanced by breaking down the barriers between the two



69

forms of leadership and preparing both teachers and administrators to lead in democratic learning

communities.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by the University of South Florida Internal Awards Program

under Grant No. TPA18300173500R015614. I want to thank Amy Bane for her research

assistance and the reviewers for the helpful comments and suggestions.



70

References

Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 1522.

Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 255282.

Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443449.

Berry, B., & Ginsberg, R. (1990). Creating lead teachers: From policy to implementation. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 616621.

Blase, J. & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Becoming a teacher leader: From isolation to collaboration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

CambronMcCabe, N. (1993). Leadership for democratic authority. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Preparing tomorrow’s school leaders: Alternative designs. University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration.

Carr. D. A. (1997). Collegial leaders: Teachers who want more than just a job. The Clearing House, 70, 240242.

ChildsBowen, D., Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 2734.

Crews, A. C., & Weakley, S. (1995). Hungry for leadership: Educational leadership programs in the SREB states. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC 391 250).

DarlingHammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. Elementary School Journal, 96, 87106.

Day, C., & Harris, A. (2002) Teacher leadership, reflective practice and school improvement. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.) Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 957978). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.



71

Dewey, J. (1960). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. (Original work published 1933).

DiRanna, K. & LoucksHorsley, S. (2001). Designing programs for teacher leaders: The case of the California Science Implementation Network. In C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K. Pugalee, A. C. Miller, & W. J. DiBiase (Eds.), Developing teacher leaders: Professional development in science and mathematics. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. [ED 451 031]

Fessler, R., & Ungaretti, A. (1994). Expanding opportunities for teacher leadership. In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Perspectives on the professional development of teachers (pp. 211222). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Gabriel, J. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glover, D., Miller, D., Gambling, M., Gough, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). As others see us: Senior management and subject staff perceptions of the work effectiveness of subject leaders in secondary schools. School Leadership and Management, 19, 331344.

Hackney, C. E., & Henderson, J. G. (1999). Educating school leaders for inquirybased democratic learning communities. Educational Horizons, 77(2), 6773.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, P. (1999). Can Leadership Enhance School Effectiveness?. In T. Bush, R. Glatter, R. Bolam, P. Ribbins and L. Bell (Eds.) Redefining educational management, (pp. 178190). London: Paul Chapman.

Hallinger, P., & Richardson, D. (1988). Models of shared leadership: Evolving structures and relationships. The Urban Review, 20, 229245.

Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 928.

Heller, M. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 6586.

Hill, M. S. (1995). Educational leadership cohort models: Changing the talk to change the walk. Planning and Changing, 26(3/4), 179189.

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant, helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kraus, C. M., & Cordeiro, P. A. (1995, October). Challenging tradition: Reexamining the preparation of educational leaders for the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.



72

Krueger, J. A., & Milstein, M. M. (1995). Promoting excellence in educational leadership: What really matters? Planning and Changing, 26, 148167.

Lambert, L. (1998). How to build leadership capacity. Educational Leadership, 55(7),1719.

Lambert, L. (2005). Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 6265.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Teachers and principals: Turf, tension, and new tasks. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(9), 648653.

Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher leadership: Ideology and practice. In The JosseyBass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 339345). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Little, J. W. (1995). Contested ground: The basis of teacherleadership in two restructuring high schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 4763.

Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for teachers’ instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245275.

Marsh, D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twentyfirst century: Integrating three essential perspectives. In The JosseyBass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 126145). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

McCay, L., Flora, J., Hamilton, A., & Riley, J. F. (2001). Reforming schools through teacher leadership: A program for classroom teachers as agents of change. Educational Horizons, 79, 135142.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (4 th ed.). New York: Longman.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Miles, M. B., Saxl, E. R., & Lieberman, A. (1988). What skills do educational 'change agents' need? An empirical view. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 157193.

Miller, L., & O'Shea, C. (1992). Learning to lead: Portraits of practice. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching: Ninetyfirst yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Teaching (pp. 197211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration, 31, 437448.



73

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Available online: http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5 02.pdf

Norris, C. J., & Barnett, B. (1994, October). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts to communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA.

Ovando, M. (1996). Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Planning and Changing, 27(1/2), 3044.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (8 th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Paulu, N., & Winters, K. (1998). Teachers leading the way: Voices from the National Teacher Forum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Pellicer, L., & Anderson, L. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for schools?. London: Routledge.

Sherrill, J. (1999). Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century. Theory into Practice, 38(1), 56–61.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results., In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.) Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 561612). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 37.

Smylie, M. A. & BrownleeConyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 150184.

Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3) 235259.

Smylie M. A., Conley S., & Marks H. (2002). Exploring New Approaches to Teacher Leadership for School Improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.) The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162188). University of Chicago Press.


http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf


74

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 117.

Taylor, L., & Bogotch, I. E. (1994). School level effects of teachers’ participation in decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 302319.

Taylor, D., & Tashakkori, A. (1997, November). Toward an understanding of teachers desire for participation in decisionmaking. Journal of School Leadership, 7, 609628.

Troen, V., & Boles, K. (1994). Two teachers examine the power of teacher leadership. In Walling, D. R. (Ed.), Teachers as Leaders: Perspectives on the Professional Development of Teachers (pp. 275286). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

YorkBarr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255316.


Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongmien
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol. 4 ... · Journal of Research for Educational...

Documents