Elementary School Leadership Strategies and Subject Matter: Reforming Mathematics and Literacy Instruction Patricia Burch James P. Spillane Northwestern University The Elementary School Journal Volume 103, Number 5 © 2003 by The University of Chicago, AIL rights reserved (0013-5984 /2003/10306-0005805.00 Abstract Interviews and observations of 15 elementary school administrators and 15 curriculum coor dinators from 8 urban elementary schools sug- gested that leaders’ views of subject matter both shaped and were shaped by their leadership strategies. Relative to mathematics, leaders’ agendas for improving literacy instruction fo- cused on teachers’ input and on literacy skills that applied to a variety of academic subjects. In contrast, leaders’ strategies for improving math instruction focused on external supports such as professional developers and on building, skills through sequenced instruction. Leaders who in- teracted regularly with teachers about instruc- tion also articulated the importance of using in- ternal and external expertise to improve both literacy ancl mathematics instruction. In this ar- ticle we illuminate the reciprocal relation be- tween subject matter and leadership and con- sider the implications of this relation for school leadership development. Although much is known about the impor- tance of school leadership and subject- matter knowledge to instructional change, there is limited understanding of how these factors interact. School leaders can create in- centives for teachers to take collective re- sponsibility for academic improvement (Lieberman, Falk, & Alexander, 1994; Ro- senholtz, 1989; Sheppard, 1996). A recent re- search synthesis confirmed a strong posi- tive relation between effective principal behaviors and teachers’ commitment to re- form, openness to innovation, and involve- ment in improvement efforts (Sheppard, 1996). Research has also shown that the subject a teacher teaches is important to his or her work (Ball & Lacy, 1984; Little, 1993; Mc- Laughlin & Talbert, 1993; Siskin, 1991, 1994;520 Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). High school teachers specialize in particular subjects and are members of subcultures linked to these subjects (Little, 1993; Siskin, 1991, 1994). Though most elementary teachers do not have subject-matter specialties, subject matter also appears to be an important con- text for their practice (Stodolsky, 1988) and their efforts to improve that practice (Drake, Spillane, & Hufferd-Ackles, 2001; Spillane, 2000) However, relations between elementary school leadership and subject matter are not understood well. In the leadership scholar- ship, instruction is treated as a generic vari- able—whether the focus is on reading or mathematics (Spillane, Halverson, & Dia- mond, 2001). The subject-matter scholar- ship tends to view norms of subject matter as pervasive influences on teachers’ practice that mediate reform agendas (Ball, 1981; Little, 1993). For example, Stephen Ball (1981) found that English and mathematics departments at one school responded very differently to efforts to create multi-ability classrooms. English teachers supported the effort, whereas foreign-language teachers argued against the reform. Likewise, citing research by Stodolsky (1993), Grossman (1996) argued that teachers’ views of se- quentiality in subjects such as mathematics can contribute to resistance to curricular re- forms that are organized thematically as op- posed to sequentially. In order to explore interactions between leadership and subject matter, we studied patterns in how administrators and curric- ulum coordinators across eight elementary schools ina large urban school district iden- tified expertise for improving mathematics and literacy instruction. In particular, we looked for patterns in leaders’ emphases on internal expertise such as the practical in- sights of fellow faculty relative to external expertise such as university-designed staff development. Leaders not only enacted subject-matter views through their reform strategies, they also reported that their lead- ership strategies affected these views. Based THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL on this evidence, we argue that leadership practice and leaders’ subject-matter views have a reciprocal relation. What leaders do to improve instruction depends in part on their views of subject matter. Nevertheless, leaders’ views of teachers’ subject-area needs also emerge through their leadership practice. We begin by discussing the framework we developed to. guide our analysis and then describe our research method. We then compare leaders’ reform strategies for im- proving teachers’ literacy instruction with their reform strategies in mathematics. We examine the ways in which these reform strategies reflected views of instructional content and process identified as unique to particular subject-matter domains. In the second half of the article we consider what some leaders reported learning from their interactions with teachers regarding both literacy and mathematics. We conclude by considering the implications of this evi- dence for school leadership development. Theoretical Framework The framework we developed integrates concepts across four domains of research, in particular, the influence of teachers’ subject- matter views on teachers’ work (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1994; Siskin, 1991, 1994), the distribution of instructional leadership within a school (Spillane et al., 2001), the reciprocal relation between social structures and human agency (Giddens, 1979), and the role of sense-making in human cognition (Weick, 1996, 1979). We use this framework to examine the interface between leaders’ views of subject matter and their leadership practice in reform of literacy and mathe- matics instruction. The framework also il- luminates how multiple leaders within a school share in the work of subject-matter reforms, Our analysis is based on research on the relation of teachers’ practice to subject mat- ter. Subjects and perceptions thereof vary in ways that are likely to result in differences MAY 2003in leadership practice and its consequences. First, the value the school and broader com- munity place on a discipline varies by sub- ject Giskin, 1991, 1994; Stodolsky, 1988). This variation is reflected in the distribution of resources within a school. For example, time allocations, staffing, and professional development (time and content) all depend on the value attached to each subject. Sec- ond, there are epistemological differences among subjects, that is, in the nature of the knowledge of a discipline including its structure, sequence, and desired goals. Grossman and Stodolosky (1994) argued that school subjects vary on at least five di- mensions: (1) degree of definition: whether or not there is agreement regarding the con- tent of the subject (i.e., more defined fields are characterized as emphasizing formal training as a measure of expertise); (2) scope: the extent to which a subject is homogeneous or is composed of a number of disciplines or fields of study; (3) degree of sequence: degree to which prior learning is perceived as a prerequisite to later learning; (4) char- acterization of subject as static or dynamic (i.e., more dynamic fields are characterized by active production of new knowledge, changing theoretical positions, and a con- tinuing need to stay up to date; the content of more static subjects changes less rapidly); and (5) degree to which a subject is viewed as core or basic. Variations in the ways teachers perceive subjects are likely to be important in under- standing relations between reform and in- struction and to affect teachers’ curricular control, standardization of curriculum, and agreement about practice and coverage (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1993, 1994). For ex- ample, high school mathematics teachers report significantly less control and auton- omy over curriculum than social studies and English teachers, who report high con- trol and autonomy. Investigations of how views of subject matter affect elementary school leadership are scarce. However, available work sug- gests that subject matter is an important LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 521 context for the work of elementary school leaders and their efforts to improve teach- ers’ practice (Nelson, 1999; Spillane, Dia- mond, & Jita, 2000; Stein & D’ Amico, 2000). These studies explored the salience of sub- ject matter to elementary school administra- tors by examining subject-specific patterns in their views of student learning (Nelson, 1999; Stein & D'Amico, 2000) and the allo- cation of resources (Spillane et al., 2000) Based on interviews and focus groups with 40 administrators in an urban school district, Nelson (1999) argued that admin- istrators need regular opportunities to an- alyze existing views and practices about mathematics in order to construct new un- derstandings of current mathematics re- forms. Stein and D’ Amico (2000) found that administrators’ expertise in literacy and mathematics influenced district reforms within an urban district. Drawing on pre- liminary evidence across eight elementary schools, Spillane and others (2001) found differences in the distribution of leadership for literacy and mathematics. There were fewer leaders for mathematics instruction compared to language arts instruction, and fewer still for science instruction compared to the other two subjects. Norms of teaching and learning ema- nate from the multiple organizational con- texts in which school staff work (Me- Laughlin & Talbert, 1993). For elementary school leaders, these contexts include dis- tricts; professional associations such as col- laboratives, networks, and unions; as well as school sectors such as grade-specific or subject-specific decision-making structures. Policy directives and inducements emanat- ing from these contexts, such as standard- ized test pressures (state and district) and faculty-designed curricula (school sector), carry powerful signals about teaching and learning. Principals, assistant principals, and cur riculum coordinators bear important re- sponsibility for overseeing the subject- matter reforms that are the focus of much current policy. However, research on sub-522 ject matter gives the practice concerns of these leaders short shrift. A distributed per- spective on school leadership (Spillane et al. 2001) considers the ways in which prin- cipals, assistant principals, and curriculum coordinators share responsibility for in- structional leadership. It also draws atten- tion to the importance of materials to the practice of leadership. Reforms are shaped in part through administrators’ decisions about where reform expertise resides. Ad- ministrators, like classroom teachers, seek expertise directly from colleagues but also indirectly in the context of materials such as curriculum guides, policy directives, and unit guides. Thus, we considered these ma- terial tools as central to the relation between subject matter and leadership strategie: This perspective is particularly impor- tant in a reform climate that presses leaders to increase the pace of their reforms while at the same time helping teachers to exper- iment with new instructional strategies. Hence, leadership requires knowledge about how teachers develop professionally ‘as well as the ability to build momentum for school-wide changes. Challenging tra- ditional assumptions about administrators’ and curriculum coordinators’ primary ex- pertise, we considered how administrators work with classroom teachers to address specific instructional issues and how curric- ulum coordinators work school wide to ad- dress shared instructional concerns among teachers, Rather than assuming that subject, matter is relevant for leaders, we examined what leaders said about math and literacy, how they enacted their views, and what they learned about subject matter through their leadership work Those who study subject matter as con- text do not attend to how actors make sense of a social situation and by acting in and on that situation transform it. This view de- picts subject-matter norms primarily as act- ing upon teachers via structures such as professional norms, teacher preparation, departmentalization, and professional or- ganizations. For example, some researchers THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL have found that high school teachers adhere to subject subcultures based on their assign- ments within departments (Grossman, 1996; Grossman & Stodolsky, 1994; Siskin, 1991, 1994). In this research, subject subcul- tures powerfully influenced the process of instructional change, mediating teachers’ interpretation of reforms and the effects of reforms on classroom practice (Ball, 1981; Ball & Bowe, 1992; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). Following Giddens (1979, 1984), we viewed structure as both the medium and the outcome of human activity. Structure- in our case subject-matter norms—cons! tutes agency, providing the rules and re- sources upon which actions are based; how- ever, agents can also create, reproduce, and potentially transform structure. This frame- work directed our attention to the interface between wider norms and school reform strategies. It reminded us that subject- matter differences, although important, do not represent universal truths but exist as perceptions—ways of seeing the world. As perceptions, these views can be influ- enced by leaders’ own sense-making—their attempt to respond to new challenges and reconcile these challenges with existing as- sumptions. Weick (1996) emphasized that sense-making focuses on actions in that it takes place in the context of ongoing proj- ects. In their responses to dilemmas, people make sense of their environments and in this way enact their environments. This sense-making takes place in a social context with multiple actors. Drawing on this per- spective, we examined how some leaders generated perspectives about improving in- struction in reading and mathematics in the course of visiting classrooms, analyzing stu- dent work, and meeting with groups of teachers to discuss their concern: Method This article derives from data from the pilot phase and first 2 years of the Distributed Leadership Project, a 4-year longitudinal study of elementary school leadership. The MAY 2008research team conducted the 6-month pilot phase during the winter and spring of 1999. The first full year of data collection began in September 1999 and involved eight Chi- cago elementary schools, two of which also were part of the pilot phase. Research Site and Sample Selection We used a theoretical sampling strategy (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1970), se- lecting schools based on five dimensions as summarized in Table 1. All eight schools are in the Chicago Public School District. All are high poverty with a minimum of 60% of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches. We selected schools that varied in student demographics, including four schools that were predominantly African- American, two that were predominantly Hispanic, and two that were mixed racially. Six out of eight schools had shown signs of improving mathematics, science, or literacy instruction based on students’ scores on standardized tests and other measures of academic productivity. The academic pro- ductivity measure uses Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) scores to determine the aca- demic gain for students spending the entire year at individual schools. This measure is used to determine the productivity of schools over time. We also used other aca- demic productivity measures including level of academic press based on survey data from the Consortium for Chicago School Research. The academic press mea- sures, based on 20 survey items, gauged the extent to which students reported that their teachers pushed them to reach high levels of academic performance in specific content areas. Two of the eight schools had man- aged no improvement in academic perfor- mance. We also selected schools that varied in the duration of their change efforts as de- termined by interviews with local reform leaders. Two of eight schools had been in- volved in instructional change for 1-3 years, two for 4-6 years, and four schools had been involved in reforms for 7-9 years. LEADERSHIP STRATE 523 Finally, schools varied in terms of the gen- eral focus of their reforms. At the outset of study, three schools in our sample empha- sized a transmission approach to student learning. Five schools emphasized a social construction view of student learning. In this article we focus our analysis on two types of data—structured and semi- structured interviews with four leaders in each school and field notes from observa- tions of these leaders. Sampling strategies also were theoretically driven. In each school, we sought represeniation from three groups expected to share in instructional leadership: principals, assistant principals, and curriculum coordinators. For our sam- ple of curriculum coordinators, we ran- domly selected two individuals at each school who were identified as having re- sponsibility for curriculum. coordination and who spent no more than 50% of their time engaged in classroom teaching. In school F, we were only able to interview the principal and one curriculum coordinator. Because school C did not have curriculum coordinators, for that school we inter- viewed two teacher leaders identified as having oversight of mathematics and liter- acy reforms. Five of the curriculum coor- dinators were responsible for curriculum and instruction in both reading and math. Six identified themselves as primarily math coordinators, and four described them- selves as primarily literacy coordinators. Data Collection Data included observations, structured and semistructured interviews, and video- tapes of leadership practice. We spent the equivalent of 3~4 days per week per school over a 10-week period for each project year and the pilot phase. Leadership events observed as part of this data collection in- cluded grade-level meetings, faculty meet- ings, school improvement planning meet- ings, professional development workshops, and supervision of teaching. In addition, we observed other events where leaders dis- cussed subject matter including homeroom-Syayonpoud so saanseour sapo 11S D1SeA JO SISO] WMOT yA HO SO4096 ,SIUOPRIS UI UAWOAOIcEE sw Pauyap sea ApATONposd snUAPLIY, a, pu Suipeos pur ‘aruans zad-poonpar 10 d94j Sujalaoar syuapnys yo aejuas.ad. 0 $ g e r 96 Tee'L H 0 0 0 0 ooL 6 PsO'L °° 0 0 0 0 OO 46 oe 4 0 0 46 0 € 6 8% a 0 oO 0 0 OO 06 8 d 0 te 6L Ob 8 4 86h ° I ira Zz ob é 9. ‘SOL a oO 0 0 0 ool 6 ® v weouowy —uvisy —unds}y ANIM, (PEI atwOON] TONNE —_ [OOS 2AReN, M01 %conversations between teachers, lunchroom conversations, and subject-specific work- shops and meetings. Our interview questions with school leaders addressed five issues about leader- ship: (1) the key goals leaders work on (e.g., building a school vision, promoting teacher professional development, improving test scores, etc.); (2) daily tasks they perform to attain these goals (e.g., observing class- rooms, forming breakfast clubs, facilitating grade-level meetings, etc.) and the subject- matter focus of the tasks, if any; (3) their practice as leaders (and how and whether they perform these daily tasks with others); and (4) tools and material resources (includ- ing curricula, teachers’ guides, memos, pro- tocols, and organizational structures) the respondents identified as important to goals and tasks. We also observed school leaders on multiple occasions, following them into classrooms and meeting rooms, and took field notes. We then conducted postobservation interviews with these lead- ers about what we had observed. Observa- tion protocols focused on the nature and substance of leadership tasks and leaders’ perceptions of tasks’ importance. Data Analysis Data collection and data analysis (on- going) were connected closely, allowing us to examine patterns and working hypothe- ses as they emerged and to refine data col- lection as the study progressed (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We developed coding categories based on the theoretical frame- work described previously and on initial analyses of our observation and interview data. In this article we focus on three indices within our larger coding system. The first focused on leaders’ statements of belief. Four codes (goals and challenges of teacher and student learning) were created to cate- gorize these data. The second index fo- cused on subject matter. We used three codes (mathematics, literacy, and other subjects) to label these data. The third in- dex described leaders’ practice or our ob- LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 525 servations of that practice. We coded for observations, self-reports, or other leaders’ reports of (a) regular meetings with individ- ual teachers to talk about classroom practice and/or student work, and (b) meetings with small groups of teachers over time to discuss subject-specific issues, Coding for this study was used to index the multiple data sets collected for each of 30 leaders and to identify common patterns in leaders’ views regarding subject matter and their roles in subject-specific reforms. We used constant comparison to identify, test, and refine assertions. In each instance, we triangulated the data, checking leaders’ self-reports with evidence from repeated in- terviews, observation field notes, as well as interviews with other leaders within the same school. Results and Discussion Enacting Subject-Matter Views Table 2 summarizes school leaders views of subject matter and where expertise for instructional reform resides. The beliefs summarized emerged through leaders’ in- terview responses and in our observations. of their leadership practice. Leaders ex- pressed these views in statements about their beliefs about subject matter and about effective leadership strategies. Leaders iden- tified reading and mathematics as instruc- tional priorities, reflecting their views that these are core subjects in the curriculum, In addition, whether leaders thought schools should use expertise from inside or outside the school to help with reforms differed be- tween literacy (inside) and mathematics (outside). These differences reflected in part widely held views of mathematics as a highly defined discipline in which expertise develops through formal training and of lit- eracy as having less defined areas of exper- tise. We explore these patterns below. Reform Focus Eighty percent of the 30 leaders we in- terviewed identified both reading and mathematics as the primary focus of their526 Tan 2. Percentage of Leaders Express Five Views about Literacy and Mathematics, ‘THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL View Literacy Mathematics Subject is core to curriculum 80 8 ills support learning in other subjects 83 7 should be taught ina particular sequence 16 53 School has primary expertise for reform 80 13 External community has primary expertise for reform 2 63 Ny N = 30. Percentages are based on leaders self jorts and confirmed by triangu- lation of data through repeated interviews and observation field notes. instructional improvements. Only 13% of leaders mentioned improvements in science as focal. Leaders explained how district pressures to improve test scores in reading and math had lent new urgency to their mathematics and literacy reforms. For ex- ample, when asked if particular issues were consuming the time and energy of the school staff during the 1999-2000 academic year, a curriculum coordinator responded, “Nothing but reading and math programs that consumed—that's energy consumed because that’s where our focus is. We have pressure to meet certain guidelines. We have pressure to get the children who are below grade level on grade level.” An as- sistant principal at another school com- mented: “We are still aiming for the na- tional average being at 50% in both reading and math, and we feel that we can get there even with our mobility rate. It’s not difficult to remain motivated because we still have a challenge ahead of us, and we are work- ing vigorously on it.” The schools in our study are located in Chicago, a school district that has made standardized test scores in reading and mathematics the primary measure of school performance. Schools that fail to meet na- tional norms on standardized tests in read- ing and mathematics at the benchmark grades of 3, 6, and 8 face probationary status and possible closure. Based on field observations and document collection, di trict leadership used directives and memo- randums to communicate these subject-area priorities both to schools that faced proba- tion (schools A and F) and to schools that had met or neared national norms (the other six schools). The fact that leaders across all eight schools identified reading and math as instructional priorities reflects in part the importance of these subjects to the district’s reform agenda as well as the leaders’ own views of instruction. Regardless of role or school, 83% of all school leaders articulated a similar view of effective literacy instruction: Because stu- dents read and write in every content area, teachers should work on reading and writ- ing throughout the day rather than treating literacy as an isolated subject. The com- ments of an assistant principal reflected leaders’ personal beliefs on this topic: “I’m not a proponent of spelling books. You teach spelling across the curriculum—that will help to increase the vocabulary, and also encouraging having books for students to read—that also builds their vocabulary. -So in the classroom we teach the spelling, vocabulary across the curriculum. You get vocabulary from every subject: math, sci- ence, of course the language arts.”” Well over half of leaders also depicted literacy as a broad measure of student pro- gress that involves essential learning skills. For example, a principal reported: “[] think] of writing as really important because it in- tegrates so many things. It integrates think- ing. It integrates being able to organize. It integrates spelling and language and many different things, So I thought it [reading samples of student writing] was a good way for me to get a kind of snapshot of what's happening and what people are doing in this school.” MAY 2003Leaders’ views of literacy and mathe- matics differed widely in four of five areas (see Table 2). In mathematics, 53% of lead- ers emphasized having teachers adhere closely to the sequence of curriculum. This perspective was prominent among both school administrators and curriculum co- ordinators. At the time of the study, the Chicago Public School District still em- ployed a norm-referenced standardized test, the ITBS, as the primary school perfor- mance measure within district accountabil- ity policy. The test is a nationally norm- referenced test administered in May of each school year to students in first through eighth grades. The mathematics portion of the test emphasizes basic computational skills as tested through multiple-choice items. In 1999, Illinois introduced a new standards-based assessment program, the Illinois Standards Achievement Tests. This test emphasizes students’ ability to problem solve in mathematics over factual recall mea- sured by multiple-choice items. Leaders’ views reflect in part pressure to improve performance on these state and district tests, as the comments of this curriculum coordi- nator indicate: “It [low math scores on stan- dardized tests] starts without building the skills, very basic skills with children who come underprepared for school ... and it has them starting with thinking about com- puting and developing their reasoning skills, which is all well and good, but they are lacking basic skills, computation skills.” The curriculum coordinator, echoing the concerns of other leaders, defined the prob- lem of mathematical learning as an issue of skill sequence—an issue defined in relation to standardized testing pressures and re- flecting a vision of mathematics as a highly ordered body of knowledge. Reform Strategies Although they viewed mathematics and literacy as important subjects, leaders out- lined different reform strategies in the two areas (see Table 2). Eighty percent of all LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 527 leaders viewed their own school commu- nity as the primary source of expertise for improving literacy instruction and test scores. In contrast, leaders referred to cur- riculum and/or to training associated with an external program in describing their school’s efforts to improve mathematics teaching. They were less likely to mention the importance of teacher input in mathe- matics reforms than in literacy. These pat- terns reflect widely held norms regarding the importance of formal training and ex- pertise in mathematics relative to literacy. We explore these patterns below. A majority of leaders identified school- developed literacy activities—parent pro- grams, reading competitions, and curricu- lum development groups—as critical to improving instruction, as evidenced in the comments of one principal: “We've also de- veloped a language arts committee. Because as we began to look at our [students’] writ- ing skills, we felt that if teachers were able to effectively evaluate writing, they would become better teachers of the writing pro- cess.” Similarly, the principal of another school emphasized the importance of teacher in- put via the literacy subcommittee and the school’s efforts to reward and acknowledge that input: “There were some things [pro- posals to pilot new literacy strategies] that came out of the literacy committee that did not have full school-wide support. However, since there is an awful lot of work that had gone into that, we wanted to make sure that there were provisions that would let those interested in following up on these ideas have an opportunity to work with them.” ‘These leaders’ remarks emphasize the value of teachers’ practical insight in efforts to reform literacy. In the school that devel- oped a language arts committee, a group of teachers acted as peer coaches to fellow fac- ulty and evaluated other teachers’ practice by analyzing student work, In the school that solicited teachers’ input in literacy re- forms, the principal emphasized the need for school-wide discussion and also a dem-528 cocratic process in implementing and refin- ing that vision. Leaders spoke of different strategies for instructional improvement in mathematic: As with literacy, leaders wanted to improve students’ performance on standardized tests. However, in mathematics, leaders placed much less emphasis on teacher par- ticipation in decision making and instead frequently attributed improvements at their schools to use of an established mathemat- ics curriculum associated with a textbook, For example, a curriculum coordinator de- scribed mathematics improvements as the result of a mathematics series that the school had recently adopted: “I like it [the new mathematics series] a lot as a curriculum. It’s proven, to us—I mean, data doesn’t lie.”” When asked where she obtained help for improving mathematics instruction, she responded: “I look to my former professors for guidance. You know, how do I help teachers? The whole [new mathematics se- ries] curriculum has been a really a huge source of expertise. I mean they basically had staff developers coming and saying, ‘This is what you're going to do’ and tons of support. | mean they were there [at the school] every week. They provide all the materials, all the supplies, because we are a pilot test school for them.” Statements such as these reveal leaders’ tendency to view expertise beyond the school as a critical dimension of mathemat- ics reforms. The statement also reveals how leaders encounter and enact norms of sub- ject matter through their participation in professional communities. The reform ini- tiative the curriculum coordinator referred to incorporated a highly sequenced mathe- matics curriculum and intensive profes- sional development support. In the second year of data collection, two additional schools purchased and began using the cur riculum. In these schools, the presence and character of the curriculum both reflected and likely reinforced views about the na- ture and placement of mathematics exper- tise. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL To summarize, leaders in all schools re- sponded to district pressures by accelerat- ing literacy and mathematics reforms al- ready under way. Their priorities reflected leaders’ views of mathematics and literacy as core subjects. The reform strategies that leaders pursued also reflected subject- matter norms. Leaders identified outside expertise as important for improving math- ematics instruction and said little about the need for teacher participation in curriculum development. They also emphasized the need to provide teachers with additional professional training in mathematics. In im- proving literacy instruction leaders empha- sized the school community as the locus for development of literacy programs and ma- terials, Leaders’ views also reflected pres- sures related to local policy and to stan- dardized tests in literacy and mathematics, as well as the character of university- developed mathematics curricula Our findings illustrate that instructional leadership in elementary schools is medi- ated by subject matter. Contrary to popular portrayals, norms of subject matter pervade not only high schools but also elementary school teaching and leadership. Leaders in elementary schools approach instructional change not only in terms of grade levels but also in relation to concerns specific to sub- ject matter. Rather than unidirectional, the relation between norms of subject matter and leaders’ work can be reciprocal. Norms of subject matter not only structure leaders’ work, but leaders report that norms can be shaped by this work. How Views of Subject Matter Shift through Leadership Practice Leadership itself helped some leaders acquire information about teachers’ subject- specific needs. Leaders who interacted di- rectly with teachers about classroom teach- ing and learning articulated a role for external supports in improving literacy in- struction and a role for more school-based expertise in mathematics reform. Daily in- volvement in the teaching and learning pro- MAY 2003)cess helped the leaders see the complexities involved in instructional reform and use these insights to modify school-wide reform practices. By daily involvement, we mean leaders observing teachers in classrooms, analyzing student work, and meeting with small groups of teachers to talk about their practice. Literacy. The actions and beliefs sum- marized in Table 3 emerged through lead- ers’ interview responses, the reports of other leaders within the same school, and in our observations of their leadership prac tice. Over half (57%) of all leaders were in- volved in the daily work of literacy reform. As a group, principals (87%) were most in- volved. Curriculum coordinators were less so (67%). Leaders involved in interactions with teachers about literacy reforms re- ported and were observed making repeated observations of individual teachers as they tried new activities such as word walls and literature circles. These leaders reported and were observed offering substantive feedback on what they saw in before- and after-school meetings with teachers or in memos to individual teachers. They also re- ported and were observed offering more in- formal assistance with teachers’ material needs. For example, they suggested age- appropriate novels for interdisciplinary units, shared samples of student-authored journals, and obtained workbooks or novels for teachers who were missing complete sets. LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 529 Some leaders reported that these activi- ties helped them see the value of integrating school-developed strategies with more ex- ternal assistance. For example, a school on Chicago's West Side conducted an intense campaign to infuse reading and writing throughout the curriculum. Similar to other schools, the school’s literacy reform strate- gies focused on teachers’ input and discus- sion. The principal assumed an active role in this effort, regularly attending grade- level meetings and visiting teachers’ class- rooms. In the course of these meetings, she realized what teachers could learn from re- search beyond discussing their practice. She reported: “One week, some of the teachers volunteered to come in and show how they had used some of the [research] literature . how they had enacted some of the things or changed their way of doing things based on the literature, And it just—just hit me, I said, ‘Wow, this is a tremendous resource.’” Based on this experience, the principal de- cided to work more closely with a univer- sity partner to connect teachers with re- search on best practices. Teachers identified an area in which they wanted information, and then “the [university partner] came in and provided some additional articles so that they could read more about it.” The fol- lowing year, the principal provided money for substitutes in order that teachers could follow up readings by attending work- shops. This school, like the others in our sam- Taste 3, Percentage of Leaders Interacting with Teachers about Mathematics and Literacy Instruction Leader N Daily All leaders 30 57 Principal 8 7 Assistant principal z 29 Coordinator 07 Note.—“Daily” and “limited” de Interactions with Teachers Mathematics Limited Daily Limited 43 43 57 13 37 63 a 4 86 33, 60) 40 ribe interactions of leaders who did or did not report, respectively, having regular meetings with individual teachers or groups of teachers to discuss classroom practice and whose reports were confirmed by triangulation of data sources including repeated interviews, observation field notes, and interviews with other leaders in the school.530 ple, had developed a participatory ap- proach to improving literacy instruction. Through her involvement in the daily work of reform, the principal learned something, from teachers about the value of external expertise. In contrast, a principal at another school, who had much less interaction with teachers around literacy reforms, expressed. little interest in using external expertise. In- stead, by his own and other leaders’ reports, he dismissed faculty requests for more pro- fessional development and encouraged the faculty to discuss teaching with one another and to do more team teaching, In other instances, leaders described what they had learned as a result of observ- ing, literacy instruction with teachers and talking about literacy. These responses shared a common theme. Leaders described hearing things and seeing things that sug- gested that some teachers remained con- fused about changes in classroom practice. For example, at the outset of the study, an assistant principal praised the decision to redirect school resources to classroom li- braries rather than having one centralized library for the entire school. As the year progressed, the assistant principal assumed an active role in school improvement plan- ning by interviewing teachers. She de- scribed herself as “Walking in the class- room. Visiting with the teachers. Visiting with the students. Asking them, ‘What is the problem?’” In doing this work, she dis- covered the following: ‘There is no uni- form curriculum. People are pretty much doing what they want to do... .. this is the literature-based reading program, ... yet nobody has really in-serviced them on how it should be done. All they know is they’re supposed to take a lot of library books, nov- els, and teach the reading skills using those books. How it’s supposed to be done, some teachers know, some don’t. Especially the new ones. But they’re doing it. They're do- ing it on a wing and a prayer.” Across all eight schools, leaders with daily involvement characterized teachers as supportive of literacy reforms but also de- THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL scribed teachers as confused about how to translate reforms into classroom practice. These leaders, unlike those with more lim- ited involvement, viewed external sup- ports—teachers’ guides, activity sheets, commercially prepared videos—as neces sary supplements to school-based expertise. They talked about the need for tools that could help teachers use literature circles, word walls, and student journals for the first time. For example, a curriculum coor- dinator referred to the push to “bring in someone from the outside to do a [literacy workshop]” due to her own and others’ growing concern over inadequate in-house expertise. She recalled: “These conversa- tions of conversations of conversations about—and we're all inexperienced. And, you know, somebody can say, ‘Yes, I’m the most experienced teacher in the world,’ but you don’t have this, this—none of us have this focus about us that says that—or this validation from anywhere that says what we're doing is really grounded in research or best practice.” In short, literacy reforms across the eight schools reflected norms of subject matter in locating expertise for reform at the school level. However, some leaders’ close inter- actions with teachers around instruction helped them acquire more information about teachers’ needs for external support. These leaders supported the emphasis on teacher participation in reform but also ar- ticulated the importance of complementing, these strategies with external supports. Mathematics. Involvement in mathe- matics reforms also created opportunities for leaders to build new perspectives on school expertise but with a different effect. As with literacy, work on mathematics re- forms involved a variety of activities that brought some leaders in close contact with teachers. Work in mathematics involved, among, other things, regular meetings to discuss mathematics issues, helping teach- ers locate materials for math experiments, coaching teachers in curriculum topics about which they felt unsure, and suggest- MAY 2003ing how to scaffold student learning, Forty- three percent of all leaders reported in- volvement in mathematics reforms (see Table 3). As a group, curriculum coordina- tors (60%) were most likely to be involved. Principals (37%) and assistant principals (14%) were considerably less involved in mathematics reforms. Leaders involved in implementing mathematics reforms identified external ex- pertise and training as crucial strategies. However, in contrast to colleagues with more limited involvement, they also em- phasized the need to supplement externally developed materials with more school- based and informal supports. In four schools, curriculum coordinators met with small groups of teachers to discuss mathe- matics instruction. In two schools, principals and assistant principals reviewed student achievement test scores in mathematics. They then met with teachers to discuss the implications of these data for improving, in- struction at particular grade levels. Involved mathematics leaders articu- Jated the value of mathematics textbooks and teachers’ guides. However, they also acknowledged the presence and impor- tance of more internal forms of expertise. For example, a curriculum coordinator on Chicago’s West Side identified himself early in the study as an enthusiastic supporter of a math/science curriculum the school had adopted. In 1999, he formed a workgroup of classroom teachers to “look at perfor- mance assessment in math because math is something we have talked a lot about, we have had a lot of training in, we have had a lot of support.” After several months, the coordinator decided to change the work- group’s focus from curriculum sequence and outcomes to increasing teacher owner- ship of content. He explained, “So I kind of morphed it a little bit because I really wanted teachers to focus in on what it is that we're doing. What kinds of things are we actually doing in our classroom? They're [his fellow faculty] just rushing over it” LEADERSHIP STRATI 531 Through these meetings and follow-up classroom visits, the curriculum coordina- tor became convinced of the importance of school staff discussion of mathematics be- yond formal workshops and training. He explained: “Talking about a problem that your kids did, just on the fly, with another teacher, gets that teacher thinking about that problem more than she would in a for- mal meeting [workshopl. ... If it's [discus- sion] informal, | think I’ve seen more teach- ers do it, you know, make changes in their classroom because of it.” This leader met with teachers to talk about instructional issues and followed up with classroom visits. As a result of these conversations, he saw teachers become more receptive to ideas that a staff devel- oper from outside the school had intro- duced. The curriculum coordinator did not reject the value of a standard mathematics curriculum. In his view, the common train- ing and materials gave the school a base on which to develop standard performance as- sessments. However, through his work with teachers, the coordinator also saw the need to supplement external tools and ex- pertise with teacher discussion. We found many other examples of this pattern. For example, a curriculum coordi- nator at another school met informally with fifth- and sixth-grade teachers to discuss their use of a new mathematics series. In the course of these conversations, she discov- ered that some teachers were hesitant to use the curriculum because they thought the students were not ready for group work. She decided to address this issue by having some teachers collect and share portfolios of students’ math work. The experience con- vinced the curriculum coordinator of the importance of providing teachers with school supports. In her view, teachers who were involved in the project embraced the curriculum in ways that they had not be- fore. She explained: “And we had both spe- cial ed teachers and regular classroom teachers come and tell us, “The first time we did this was last year and it was very dif-532 ficult.’ But they said to us, ‘You know what? We would've never guessed these kids could've done this. It really shows what they can do.” Another curriculum coordinator at the same school gained a similar perspective on the need for in-school supports through classroom visits. He found that although teachers were excited about the new math curriculum, they often lacked materials to implement it. After talking with teachers, he decided to make sure that teachers had ac- cess to these materials. He transformed his classroom into a curriculum resource cen- ter. In this way, teachers could get what they needed when they needed it. Referring to the value he assigned to this work, the coordinator explained, “They [teachers] come to me because they know | am the type of person used to having, little bit of everything.” Had both curriculum coordinators not talked to teachers, they might not have known about teachers’ concerns. Close in- teractions with teachers helped build these and other leaders’ interest in supplement- ing external expertise with in-school sup- ports, transforming their thinking about the work of leading change in mathematics in- struction. Without these interactions, lead- ers’ perspectives seemed to reflect tradi- tional views of mathematics expertise. For example, the principal of the school just de- scribed where the two curriculum coordi- nators worked was not involved in mathe- matics reform. She was also unaware of the issues that the curriculum coordinators identified. When asked about the progress of mathematics reforms, the principal com- mented: “So we've ordered new math books for fifth and sixth grade called [mame of curriculum]. And they [teachers] really enjoyed these. We also ordered a new series for seventh and eighth grade because we are trying to get our students to be great problem solvers.” Note the principal's en- thusiasm for the new curriculum and her assumption that teachers would be able to use it effectively. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL These examples reflect the larger pattern we observed across schools. Involvement in instructional reform activities seemed to help leaders learn new things about the role of school supports in mathematics. Well over half of all school leaders spoke enthu- siastically about the mathematics textbook series and the training associated with it. However, involved leaders also empha- sized providing teachers with day-to-day school supports. In contrast, leaders who were less involved in mathematics reforms said little about the need for teacher devel- opment beyond providing teachers with new textbooks and encouraging them to at- tend workshops. In sum, leaders not only enacted their views of subject matter through their work, but the work itself helped them see teach- ers’ needs differently. Leaders who inter- acted with teachers articulated roles for ex- ternal supports in literacy and for using more school-based expertise in mathemat- ies. In many instances, leaders reported that they had acquired these perspectives as a result of their decision to support teachers’ reform efforts more directly. Leaders who were less involved in literacy reforms char- acterized all teachers as already possessing, the basic expertise to teach reading and writing. Leaders who were less involved in daily mathematics reform did not identify teachers as needing support beyond text- books or staff development. Leaders’ work may have reinforced their emergent views rather than trans- formed them. Leaders who embraced per- spectives that departed from traditional subject-matter views sought opportunities to work more closely with teachers around instructional reforms. They formed work groups, volunteered to read students’ writ- ing, and visited teachers’ classrooms and asked questions. In other words, they at- tempted to understand teachers’ progress at implementing reforms. This suggests that moving beyond general assumptions about subject matter already was part of their leadership philosophy. Still, although MAY 2003