Building Teacher Capacity

Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol.
4, Number 1
http://www.education.uiowa.edu/jrel pp. 4474
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
greenlee@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
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.
44
Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol. 4, Number 1
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)
45
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
46
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
47
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.
48
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
49
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
50
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
51
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
52
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.
53
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
54
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
Berry & Ginsberg, 1990; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Paulu
Decision making
& Winters, 1998; Smylie, 1995; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994
DarlingHammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995; Heller &
Plan school improvement
Firestone, 1995; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001
55
Redesign instruction based on student
Barth, 2001
assessment
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
56
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
57
(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
58
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."
Percent reporting same Percent reporting
Teacher Leader Actions
level of involvement 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
48.4 38.8 50.0 50.0
assessment
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
59
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 “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 Principal
Item content pvalue
Mean SD Mean SD
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
60
Plan school improvement 1.55 0.51 1.75 0.44 0.08
1.51 0.50 1.50 0.51 0.93
assessment
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%).
61
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?"
Percent reporting Percent reporting
Support actions
same level of support 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
32.8 0 67.2 94.4
strategies
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
46.8 5.5 51.5 94.4
on students
Solicit opinions from teachers 43.7 11.1 56.2 83.3
Provide opportunities for professional
43.7 5.5 56.2 88.8
development
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
62
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 pvalue
Mean SD Mean SD
Encouraged to help other
1.64 0.48 1.95 0.23 0.00
teachers
Provided opportunities to share
1.62 0.49 2.00 0.00 0.00
ideas and strategies
Encouraged to gain new
1.68 0.47 1.94 0.24 0.01
knowledge and skills
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
1.31 0.47 1.94 0.24 0.00
teaching
Conversation with administrators
1.49 0.51 1.94 0.24 0.00
is focused on students
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
63
professional development
Provided time for leadership
1.57 0.50 1.95 0.23 0.00
activities
Teachers work with
1.55 0.50 1.95 0.23 0.00
administrators as partners
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
64
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
65
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
66
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.
67
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
68
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.
69
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.
70
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.
71
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.
72
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.
73
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.
74

Building Teacher Capacity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Teacher Capacity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Research for Educational Leaders JREL Vol.

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

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

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

Teacher leadership is not about empowering teachers by merely decentralizing decision­

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schools. The research questions that guide this investigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision making 1.62 0.50 1.70 0.47 0.50

Plan school improvement 1.55 0.51 1.75 0.44 0.08

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

Teachers Principals Teachers Principals

Encouraged to help other teachers 35.9 5.5 62.5 88.8

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

Solicit opinions from teachers 43.7 11.1 56.2 83.3

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

Teacher leadership is not about empowering teachers by merely decentralizing decision

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

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

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

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

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