University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TEACHER LEADERSHIP 1
AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHER LEADERSHIP IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

by

Janet Mack

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Janet Mack
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 2
Acknowledgements
To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for, without You, I can do nothing!
To my mother and grandmother who served as role models and instilled in me the value
of education and the importance of establishing a solid foundation and relationship with God.
To my father who exhibited a strong work ethic and demonstrated the value of
perseverance and resilience in the midst of challenging situations and circumstances such as
Parkinson’s disease.
To my brother and sister for your prayers, patience and understanding when I needed
quiet time and extra support in order to complete my studies.
To my nephew who is currently engaged in his own educational pursuits, thank you for
being open to listen to my struggles and learn from some of my mistakes. You are destined to do
great things!
To my friends and colleagues who provided words of wisdom and encouragement when I
felt extremely overwhelmed and sought refuge in my attempts to balance personal and
professional obligations.
To my extended family – grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who contributed in
large and small ways by establishing high expectations, encouraging me to dream big and to
accomplish my goals.
To all of my ancestors who endured slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow,
discrimination and unjust treatment, thank you for your sacrifice. I stand on the shoulders of
giants and would not be where I am today without the sacrifices of all the great men and women
who came before me with hopes, dreams and desires for a better day filled with equal
opportunities, equity and access for all.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 3
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Pensavalle, for encouraging me, pushing me and
challenging me to dig deeper. It is because of your guidance and support that each iteration of
this manuscript produced greater awareness, understanding and knowledge about teacher
leadership and increased competency and skill in the area of research.
To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Dr. Amina Humphrey and
Dr. Angela Hasan, thank you for your guidance, critique and inquiry. Each one of you helped to
create cognitive dissonance and made me think critically about every aspect of my research and
contribution towards seeking “truth”.
To all of the research participants who provided access to schools, completed surveys,
carved out time for interviews and willingly shared your experiences, I am forever indebted and
grateful.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 4
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Introduction 9
Background 13
Theoretical Framework 15
Statement of the Problem 19
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions 20
Importance of the Study 20
Limitations 21
Delimitations 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
School Leadership 24
School Leadership Capacity 26
School Culture 30
Teacher Leadership 32
Teacher Leader Standards 37
Teacher Leadership Development 38
Summary 41
Chapter Three: Methodology 42
Introduction 42
School Profiles 47
Instrumentation 49
Data Collection 58
Validity and Threats 63
Summary 64
Chapter Four: Research Findings and Results 65
Introduction 65
Research Question 1 66
Research Question 2 82
Summary 90
Chapter Five: Discussion and Findings 92
Review of the Study 92
Discussion of Findings 94
Areas for Future Research 98
Conclusion 98
References 100
Appendix A: Teacher Leadership School Survey 112
Appendix B: School Administrator Inteview Protocol 115
Appendix C: Teacher Leader Interview Protocol 116
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol 117
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 5
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form 118
Appendix F: Sign-in Roster 120
Appendix G: Letter to School/Faculty 121
Appendix H: Survey Letter to Faculty/Staff 122
Appendix I: Interview Letter to School Administrators 123
Appendix J: Interview Letter to Teacher Leaders 124
Appendix K: Focus Group Letter to Teacher Leaders 125

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Distributed Leadership Concept Development 16
Table 2: Definition of Terms 22
Table 3: Teacher Leader Standards 37
Table 4: School Selection Criteria 45
Table 5: School Demographic Information 46
Table 6: Alignment between Instrumentation, Research Questions and Literature Review,
Research Question and Instrumentation 51
Table 7: Internal Consistency (Cronbach Alpha) Reliabilities of the TLSS Scales 54
Table 8: Demographics for Teacher Leader Interview Participants 56
Table 9: Schedule for Data Collection 58
Table 10: Summary of Data Collection and Participants by School Type 59
Table 11: Data Analysis Aligned to Research Methodology 62
Table 12: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of TLSS Survey Responses across Schools 67
Table 13: TLSS Mean and Mode Scores by Dimension across Schools 68
Table 14: Teacher Leader School Survey (TLSS) Mean and Mode Scores by School Type 70
Table 15: Teacher Leader School Survey (TLSS) Mean and Mode Scores by School Type &
Dimension 71
Table 16: Teacher Leader Response to Factors that Support and Inhibit
Teacher Leader Practice 79
Table 17: Perceptions of Teacher Leader Roles by Participant Group 84
Table 18: Alignment between Participant Responses and Teacher Leader Standard Domain 85

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework 18
Figure 2: Mixed-Method Design 43
Figure 3. TLSS Survey Percentage of Responses by Answer Choice 67
Figure 4. Overall TLSS Mean & Mode Score by Dimension 69

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 8
Abstract
Distributed leadership alone is not sufficient to bring about the significant changes that
are required to improve teaching and learning. Schools that distribute leadership across all levels
of the organization must also work to establish collaborative cultures that promote shared beliefs,
norms, values, traditions and habits to ensure student achievement and academic success. The
purpose of the study was to examine teacher leadership practices in schools with distributed
leadership structures and investigate perceptions of teacher leader roles and identify factors that
support or inhibit teacher leader success.
A theoretical framework was constructed using distributed leadership theory, situated
cognition theory and activity cognition theory to study the contextual, cultural, political and
social factors that interconnect to support distributed leadership and advance the practice of
teacher leadership.
A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate teacher leadership practice in three
schools currently implementing distributed leadership structures. The Teacher Leadership
School Survey was distributed to assess the school culture and climate for teacher leadership. In
addition, interviews were conducted with school administrators and teacher leaders to better
understand perceptions of teacher leadership practice and factors that contribute to teacher leader
success.
Findings revealed that schools with distributed leadership structures engage in activities
that promote teacher leadership and offer multiple opportunities for teachers to participate in the
practice of teacher leadership. In addition, there are commonalities and differences in
perceptions about teacher leadership practice and teacher leadership functions outlined in the
teacher leader standards framework.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
“The finest educational leadership does not necessarily happen behind the closed doors of the
principal’s office or during the late-night board of education meetings. In fact, some of the most
dynamic leadership in schools today happens in broad daylight and with classroom doors flung
wide open through the actions of teacher leaders who lead through their willingness to reach out
to colleagues and look for ways to enhance their practice.” (Stone and Cuper, 2006)

Introduction
The enactment of accountability measures such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
puts enormous pressure on schools to improve student achievement, and the unprecedented
demands placed on schools require leadership at every level (Danielson, 2007). State and federal
performance measures for public education necessitate a shift in leadership from managing
orderly environments to sharing leadership roles and responsibilities to ensure student success
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008).
The traditional models of singular, top-down leadership in schools will not be sufficient
in today’s complex educational environment (David & Leon, 2009). School administrators are
no longer capable of leading alone, but require substantial participation and support from capable
others (Danielson, 2007; Lambert 2002; Watt et al., 2010). The complexity and size of school
systems are such that one leader working alone cannot meet the demands of daily issues,
problems and tasks (Casky, 2010). The success of schools in the 21
st
century requires
collaborative and participatory organizational structures that promote problem solving and the
creation of collective intelligence (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2008).
Educational researchers state that successful schools embrace leadership at all levels and
depend on multiple sources of leadership such as teachers, staff, parents, students and
community for continuous improvement (Childs-Bowen et.al, 2000). In the 2012 report
Greatness by Design (CA State Superintendent of Education), an educational task force
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 10
concludes that schools and districts need to build capacity for success and inspire teachers and
administrators to lead schools with urgency and an unrelenting focus on student success.
Angelle and Schmid (2007) argue that, when organizations promote and empower everyone to
lead, they become learning organizations built upon collaboration, professional relationships,
high expectations, and learning for all.
All stakeholders must learn to lead in order for schools to operate at maximum potential
(David & Leon, 2009). A distribution of leadership must occur if schools are to meet the
challenges of disproportionate levels of achievement, uneven teacher quality, high dropout rates,
and other manifestations of an economically stratified society that confront them on a consistent
basis (p. 268).
Teacher leadership is defined as the process through which teachers influence their
colleagues, principals, and other members of the school community with the aim of increased
student learning, achievement and success (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Teacher leadership is not
about teacher power, but, instead, it is about mobilizing the still largely untapped attributes of
teachers to strengthen student performance and improve teaching and learning from the ground
up (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001). There is a sleeping giant of teacher leadership in
every school that can be a strong catalyst for changes to improve student learning (Katzenmeyer
& Moller, 2009). Teacher leadership is about action that transforms teaching and learning, binds
schools and communities together, and advances social sustainability and quality of life within
communities (Davis & Leon, 2009).
Teacher leaders hold the key to improved learning and offer new contexts and
alternatives for genuine school change (Ackerman & Mackensie, 2006). Teacher leaders
maintain a focus on student learning, seek lifelong learning for themselves, use facilitation and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 11
presentation skills, engage others in shared vision and meaning, develop and maintain
relationships with other organization members and work with a sense of integrity to positively
influence teacher and student success (Angelle & Schmid, 2007). Teacher leaders serve in both
formal and informal roles. Formal teacher leaders are appointed by an administrator or voted in
by peers. These individuals work as coaches, department chairs, and mentor teachers. Informal
teacher leaders emerge organically as they seek solutions to educational problems and dilemmas
(Danielson, 2007). Teacher leaders are essential to improving academic achievement (Freeney,
2009).
According to Danielson (2006), all leadership activities take place within a cultural
context that affects how individuals treat one another, the expectations people have for their own
and others’ behavior, and the belief structure underlying school practices. The influence of
culture on school improvement is important and is a key factor in determining whether
improvement is possible (Gruenert, 2000). There is strong evidence that suggests school culture
indirectly influences achievement because it provides the context in which educational activities
happen. Collaborative school cultures provide effective contexts for improving the quality of
teaching and learning.
Researchers agree that school culture has an impact on actions, beliefs, norms and values.
In collaborative school cultures, norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions are reinforced and
supported by high levels of collaboration and discussion about enhancing professional practice.
Collaborative cultures encourage joint purpose, continuous improvement and establishment of
networks that share challenges, ideas, strategies, and resources. Collaborative cultures serve as a
catalyst to motivate teachers to take on leadership responsibilities and extend themselves beyond
the classroom.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 12
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) identified seven dimensions of a healthy school culture
that fosters teacher leadership:
1. Developmental focus – teachers are assisted in gaining new knowledge/skills
2. Recognition – teachers are recognized for their roles and contributions
3. Autonomy – teachers are encouraged to make improvements and innovations
4. Collegiality – teachers collaborate on instructional and student related matters
5. Participation – teachers are actively involved in making decisions
6. Open communication – teachers feel informed about what is happening
7. Positive environment – there is a general satisfaction with the school climate
Teacher leadership requires innovation and planning on the part of schools and districts
and can only be successful with the support of district and school structures that promote
collaboration and shared leadership (Angelle & DeHart, 2011; Wade, 2005). Districts and
schools must foster conditions that facilitate teacher leadership and build capacity in teachers to
develop the knowledge, skills and competencies to become effective teacher leaders (Danielson,
2007; Phelps, 2008).
In 2008, the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium developed teacher leader
standards to codify, promote, and support teacher leadership as a viable mechanism for the
transformation of schools. The Teacher Leader Standards (TLS) provide a common framework
and understanding what teacher leaders should know and be able to do. The standards consist of
seven domains that describe specific teacher leader functions/roles:
a. Teacher leaders foster a collaborative culture to support educator development and
student learning
b. Teacher leaders access and use research to improve practice and student achievement
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 13
c. Teacher leaders promote professional learning for continuous improvement
d. Teacher leaders facilitate improvements in instruction and student learning
e. Teacher leaders use assessments and data for school and district improvement
f. Teacher leaders improve outreach and collaboration with families and community
g. Teacher leaders advocate for student learning and the profession
According to Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) teacher leadership builds organizational
capacity, models democratic communities, empowers teachers and enhances the
professionalization of teaching. Teacher leadership also supports professional efficacy, teacher
retention, innovation, career enhancement, performance improvement, collective responsibility
and sustainability of results.
In addition, Teacher leadership reduces teacher isolation, enhances personal and
professional satisfaction, creates a sense of belonging, and provides opportunities for lifelong
learning and continuous growth. It helps to mobilize teacher expertise to improve the culture and
instruction in schools such that student learning is enhanced (Ross et al., 2011) and provides all
teachers the opportunity to develop professionally and improve the quality of teaching and
learning in their schools (Singh, 2011). The ultimate benefit is improved practice and increased
achievement and performance for all students (Thornton, 2010).
Background
In recent years, schools and districts looked towards teacher leadership as a strategy to
promote improvements in teacher quality and student learning. Because of their position within
the classroom, teacher leaders are in a unique position to be a conduit and catalyst for change. In
recent years, books and numerous articles were written about this topic, federal legislation and
grant opportunities created structures to incentivize districts and schools to develop teacher
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 14
leaders, and a number institutions of higher education offer degree programs with concentrations
in this area.
Additionally, several states include teacher leadership within their continuum of
professional development (Teacher Leadership Consortium, 2008). For example, Vanderbilt
University developed a teacher leadership program in collaboration with five states – Alabama,
Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio. Kansas adopted teacher leader standards and developed
the first assessment instrument to measure teacher leader competencies, and both Arkansas and
Connecticut established criteria for certifying teacher leaders.
Teacher leadership evolves and is transformed over the years. Silva et al. (2000)
identified three waves of teacher leadership. The first wave is described as a time when teachers
served in formal roles as grade-level chairs and department leaders. As Bond (2011) describes,
they were administrative managers who were responsible for operational and transactional tasks
such as ordering textbooks and maintaining instructional materials. The first wave of teacher
leaders had limited effect because they were considered a part of a bureaucratic hierarchy and
were often resented by their peers.
The second wave tapped into the instructional expertise of teachers by utilizing them in
professional development roles such as coach, mentor and master teacher. This generation of
teacher leaders focused on improving instruction, but the impact was minimal because they
became detached from daily classroom practice.
In its third wave, teacher leadership evolved into building collaborative relationships,
participating in school governance and focusing on instructional efforts that support school
improvement and organizational change. Bond (2011) reports that the current generation of
teacher leaders engages in the work of modeling new instructional practices, of collaborating
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 15
with colleagues to improve student learning, and of fostering a generally more productive school
culture. As the role of teacher leaders shifts from a managerial orientation to a transformational
one, teacher leadership emerges as a viable mechanism for school improvement. However, the
practice of this type of leadership cannot exist without concerted efforts on the part of school
leaders to promote distributed leadership principles, establish collaborative school cultures, and
create conditions that support the work of teacher leaders.
Theoretical Framework
Situations and contexts are not just external forces that influence leadership, but they are
an integral part of the leadership dynamic. Distributed leadership is not just a function of what
leaders think and do but an activity embedded in a context of interactions of people and tools that
influence others in practices aligned to a shared mission and vision (Smylie & Markvos, 2009).
Leadership is a reciprocal process that is stretched over leaders, followers, and activities within a
reciprocal interdependence (Lambert, 2003). Distributed leadership requires the interdependence
of individuals and the environment.
Distributed leadership is the sharing, spreading, and distributing of leadership work
across individuals and roles across organizations (Casky, 2010). Distributed leadership implies a
form of collective individualism where individuals work collaboratively to act upon and
transform systems (Harris, 2009). Distributed leadership encourages people to work together to
produce greater outcomes than they would by working in isolation. Table1 shows the conceptual
development and evolution of distributed leadership over the past fifty years.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 16
Table 1
Distributed Leadership Concept Development
Date Theorist Concept of distributed leadership
1948 Benne
&Sheats
Groups operate with varying degrees of responsibility and diffusions of
leadership function, but the concept of leadership emphasizes
multilaterally shared responsibility.
1958 Gibb Every group has a leader; however, unequivocal impersonal leadership
rarely, if ever, occurs.
1959 French &
Snyder
In an informal group, every member has a degree of influence over
others; in other words, leadership is distributed throughout the group.
1978 Katz &
Kahn
All knowledge within and outside an organization does not reside in a
formal chain of managerial command, much less at the upper end of
that chain; the sharing out of leadership functions means fully using all
the resources within the organization.
1988 Schein Once a broad set of functions is identified at a group level, it becomes
clear that any member of a given group can perform them; effective
groups are ones in which such functions are “optimally distributed”.
1995 Hutchins Teams may organize their behavior sequentially without there being a
global script or plan anywhere in the system; the only requirement is
that each team member knows what to do when certain conditions are
produced in the environment.
2001 Spillane The interdependence of the individual and the environment means that
human activity is “distributed” in the interactive web of actors, artifacts
and the situation.

Current theorizing about leadership reinforces the view that leadership is not the preserve
of one individual, but it is a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted
over others to structure activities and relationships in organizations (Harris, 2005). School
leadership establishes a tone for how schools will be organized and how individuals are
supported as they carry out functions in pursuit of goals and objectives. Schools that espouse
distributed and collaborative approaches to leadership send a strong message that individuals
working collectively produce better outcomes than do those working alone.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 17
Dewey (1935) expressed that learning occurs within social environments when
individuals share in conjoined activities, understand the purpose of the activities and become
familiar with various methods, content and skills. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning
originates through social and cultural interactions. He argues that the mind constantly changes
as part of a dialectical relationship, with the environment influencing the individual and the
individual influencing the environment.
Theories of situated cognition suggest that knowledge is developed through relationships
between individuals and artifacts that occur within cultural and social systems. The work of
situated cognition emphasizes the influence of social context on cognition and behavior by
highlighting the context-dependent nature of domain-specific activities. In situated cognition,
knowledge is facilitated and distributed across people in a system of norms, traditions and
activities. Cognition is distributed and stretched over mind, body, activity and culturally
organized settings (Lave, 1988). Individuals who work in school systems are influenced by
messages received through the cultural and social interactions that occur within the environment.
School cultures provide stimuli that communicate ways of knowing and being. School cultures
send messages that communicate focus, respect, collegiality, collaboration, shared values and
ideals.
Activity theory is a framework for understanding collective processes undertaken in
pursuit of some higher goal. The core concept in activity theory is that individuals do not merely
react to environments but, through activity and a dialectic relationship, have the power to change
the environment. Activity theory focuses on individual mediation through artifacts, tools, rules,
social interactions and relationships and provides a complex frame for understanding human
actions. Teacher leaders engage in activities focused on improving the quality of teaching and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 18
learning in schools. As teacher leaders execute the functions of teacher leadership, they have an
impact on the environment by creating shared goals, values, practices and traditions that support
enhanced student learning.
School leadership shapes school culture and teacher leader practice. School culture
shapes the collective norms, beliefs, values, rituals and institutional practices. Teacher
leadership is shaped and developed within organizations that provide structured leadership
opportunities. The sphere of teacher leader influence is directly correlated to the depth and
efficacy of cultural and social interactions that occur within a school. Figure 1 shows the
dialectical and reciprocal relationships among school leadership, culture and teacher leader
practice.

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework
The three components are interconnected and adjoined links that work together to
produce better student outcomes and improve overall school performance. Each link influences
the other in varying degrees depending on contextual, cultural, political and social factors present
in the school environment.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 19
Statement of the Problem
Formal, hierarchical models of school leadership are being replaced with shared and
distributed models that espouse collective and collaborative efforts to enhance teacher quality
and student learning. Distributed leadership theory underscores the correlation between human
interaction and learning. Distributed leadership is not just a function of what leaders think and
do but an activity embedded in a context of interactions of people and tools that influence others
in practices aligned to shared goals (Murphy et al., 2009).
The effectiveness of distributed leadership principles is closely aligned to culture,
sustained interdependence and interrelated actions of everyone in the organization. School
reform and systemic change in schools require the work of teacher leaders. The cultivation of
teacher leadership is a wise investment for schools and districts committed to improving student
achievement. Harris (2009) states that the purpose of teacher leadership is four-fold: 1) to create
collegial norms, 2) to give teacher opportunities to lead, 3) to influence teaching and learning,
and 4) to acculturate schools and establish interpersonal relationships. However, the
implementation of effective teacher leadership practices cannot be accomplished without
creating structural supports and conditions to sustain these collective and collaborative efforts.
A study is needed to understand how factors such as school leadership models, school culture,
teacher leader functions and motivation converge to support and sustain the success of teacher
leaders working in public schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine teacher leadership practices in schools with
distributed leadership structures. The study also investigated perceptions of teacher leader roles
and identified factors that support or inhibit teacher leader practice.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 20
Research Questions
1. What factors support or inhibit teacher leadership practices in schools that promote
distributed leadership?
2. What are the perceived roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders in schools that promote
distributed leadership?
Importance of the Study
Schools must build systems to ensure the sustainability of leadership structures that
support the types of innovation and transformation needed to succeed (Childs-Bowen et al.,
2000). Formal, hierarchical structures of school leadership are being transformed into models of
shared and distributed leadership, and schools must support leaders at all levels to take on the
responsibility of improving teaching and learning. Teacher leaders are an essential component of
school reform and student achievement (Buchen, 2000), but distributed leadership alone is not
sufficient to bring about the significant changes that are required to improve teaching and
learning. Schools that distribute leadership across all levels of the organization must also work
to establish collaborative cultures that promote shared beliefs, norms, values, traditions and
habits to ensure student achievement and academic success.
The study sought to provide greater awareness of how distributed leadership, coupled
with school culture, influence teacher leadership development and practices in public schools.
The study provided useful information about the motivational factors that influence teacher
leadership. It also helped to identify potential cultural and performance gaps that schools face as
they seek to implement distributed leadership models and support the development of teacher
leaders.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 21
This study found that teacher leader standards are important to use as a framework to
guide schools in establishing common expectations for what teacher leaders should know and be
able to do. The study also provided information to guide professional development schools and
teacher educators in designing programs that support the professional growth of teacher leaders
and school administrators who desire to create conditions that build leadership capacity among
all stakeholders.
Limitations
There are several limitations that should be considered as the study is reviewed and
interpreted. The research study was limited to three public schools situated in a large, urban
school district in Southern California selected through the use of convenience sampling. The
findings and results from interviews and focus groups are limited to the perceptions of
participants involved in the study.
Additional limitations included the use of telephone interviews and researcher bias.
Triangulation of data was conducted using surveys, focus groups and interviews to ensure
validity and reliability. Other strategies were also employed to maintain consistency and
dependability of findings such as member-checking, establishing participant rapport,
standardized data collection procedures, and encouraging participant elaboration. In addition,
code-recode techniques were also used.
Delimitations
Participation in this study was delimited to teacher leaders working in public high schools
in Southern California. Teacher leaders working in private or parochial schools were excluded
from the study. The study is delimited to the perspectives of administrators and teacher leaders.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 22
The perspectives of other school personnel, such as district officials, non-teacher leaders and
non-teaching staff, were excluded from consideration.
The study is delimited to the use of schools with distributed leadership structures as
defined by the researcher and may not be generalizable to all schools that implement models of
distributed leadership.
Table 2
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): a measurement of academic performance and
progress of individual schools in California.
Depth and Elaboration Response: a participant response that contains multiple phrases that
provide detailed descriptions without any probing from the researcher.
Distributed Leadership: a model of organization management where leadership roles and
functions are shared, spread and distributed across individuals within the organization.
Distributed Leadership Structures: structures that are established within an organization to
promote shared decision-making, meaningful collaboration, and collective efforts focused on
continuous improvement.
Formal Teacher Leader: any teacher such as grade-level or department chair, academy or
SLC lead, instructional coach, or member of a school governance committee appointed or
selected to serve in a leadership position with formal authority to address the needs of the
school, students and community (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2008).
Leadership: a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a
common goal.
Professional development: formal meetings, trainings and workshops focused on providing
faculty and staff with strategies and techniques to improve teaching and learning.
Public School: a kindergarten through grade twelve institution that is supported with public
funds; operated by a publicly constituted educational agency; provides educational services to
all students enrolled; has appropriately credentialed teachers providing instruction; has a
credentialed administrator; administers statewide assessments; is non-sectarian; is housed in
buildings that are “Field Act” compliant (CA State Department of Education).
Small Learning Community (SLC): smaller, autonomous units within a school designed to
create a more personalized learning environment to better meet the needs of students.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 23
Table 2, continued

Teacher Leader: any teacher who leads within and beyond their classroom, identify with and
contribute to a community of teacher learners and leaders, and influence others towards
improved educational practice (Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2009).
Teacher Leadership: a process through which teachers influence their colleagues, principals,
and other members of the school community to improve teaching and learning practices with
the aim of increased student learning and achievement (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Teacher Leader Standards (TLS): codified standards that represent the knowledge, skills
and competencies that teachers need to assume leadership roles in school, districts and the
teaching profession (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2008).
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents an overview of the literature that provides the background and
context for the study. The major topics consist of school leadership, school leadership capacity,
distributed leadership, school culture, definitions of teacher leadership, the benefits of it, teacher
leader duties, and teacher leadership development.
Organizational structure contributes to organizational effectiveness by ensuring that roles
are in place to support the attainment of organizational goals (Rutherford, 2006). Organizational
structures help to shape norms, traditions and practice that control how leadership is exercised
and to whom leadership is granted. For the past 100 years, the structure and organization of U.S.
public schools remained stable (Patterson et al., 2008). The complexities of schooling require
new leadership structures to meet the educational demands of the 21
st
century.
School Leadership
Spillane et al. (2003) state that school leadership is not simply a function of what an
individual leader knows or does, but, rather, it is constituted in the dynamic interaction of
multiple leaders, followers and the situations around specific leadership tasks. School leadership
is critical in developing and sustaining school-level conditions believed essential for instructional
improvements. Time and time again, researchers cited the importance of school leadership to the
success of individual schools (Rutherford, 2006).
Robinson (2010) identified three types of leadership knowledge that are essential:
knowledge in relation to the alignment of administrative processes with learning outcomes,
knowledge about how to solve complex problems unique to their context and knowledge
concerning effective interpersonal skills that would allow for relational trust to be built among
stakeholders. Similarly, Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) argue that successful leaders
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 25
draw on the same repertoire of basic leadership strategies such as building a shared vision and
setting directions, understanding and developing people, redesigning the organization where
necessary and managing the teaching and learning program.
Leithwood et al. (p. 29) emphasized the importance of interpersonal relationships that
support teaching and learning as well as the design of school structures that enhance, not hinder,
effective change. Williams (2008) expands on this notion of interpersonal skills by emphasizing
the importance of leaders’ emotional and social intelligence. In her comparative study of typical
and outstanding principals, she found that outstanding leaders maintain self-confidence, focused
on achievement and developed a broad concept of community and context by reaching out to all
stakeholders as deemed appropriate.
Mulfod (2006) conducted a study on leadership and change and found that effective
leaders provide individual staff support, developed a caring and trusting culture, established
participative school structures, fostered an intellectually stimulating work environment and set
high expectations for school performance.
Traditional models of school organization are built on peaked hierarchies that
concentrate power and authority in the hands of one or two administrators (Rutherford, 2006).
Leadership is the professional work of everyone in the school and the work of instructional
leadership must become a shared, community undertaking (Lambert, 2002). Shared leadership is
a critical component for achieving and sustaining high levels of performance in schools, and
school leaders must be courageous enough to share leadership. Otherwise, school reform efforts
will not be possible (Cangelosi, 2009).
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 26
School Leadership Capacity
Lambert (2010) describes leadership capacity as broad-based, skillful participation in the
work of leadership. School leadership capacity focuses on supporting the collective and
collaborative efforts of every organizational member to ensure quality teaching and positive
learning outcomes for all students. Schools must look for opportunities to build and extend
leadership capacity throughout the entire organization. Leadership capacity is an institutional
concept that schools must embrace.
Students in low leadership capacity schools are not very successful, and the professional
cultures in these schools do not support transformative change. Schools with moderate
leadership capacity lack a shared focus and are governed primarily by individual norms and
pockets of isolated success. High leadership capacity schools exhibit practices that support
leadership and learning for all. High leadership capacity schools develop structures and
processes that support and sustain interdependence and interrelated actions. Scholars suggested
that acknowledging and developing broader leadership capacity in schools may hold the key to
unlocking the store of leadership potential throughout the school (Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
Distributed Leadership
Bureaucratic school leadership models are based on top-down, authoritative ideals
designed to control people, resources and products. Schools characterized by a bureaucratic
ethos emphasize hierarchical power relations, control, accountability, efficiency, regulation and
impersonal relationships (Hallinger and Heck, 2010). Rutherford (2006) described traditional
school structures as organizations where individuals work in isolation with little or no time to
meet, work or acknowledge the interdependence of their work. In bureaucratic school cultures,
teachers work independently under tight regulations implementing prescribed curriculum with
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 27
little to no autonomy. Improvements achieved under bureaucratic school leadership models are
not easily sustainable because leadership depends solely on one individual and is not widely
distributed throughout the school (Lambert, 2002).
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) found that school leadership is
second only to classroom instruction as the major factor that contributes to what students learn in
school. Further, they identified three practices as the “core of successful leadership” in
characterizing a transformational leader: (a) helping staff members establish and understand the
goals which are the foundation of a shared vision for the school, (b) building the capacity of
those within the school and using their strengths in decision-making, and (c) changing
organizational characteristics to strengthen the school culture and build collaborative processes.
According to Barth (2001), transforming schools from dictatorships to democracies, requires
teachers must get involved in leadership.
Davis and Leon (2009) report that distributed leadership is essential if schools are to meet
the challenges of disproportionate levels of achievement among student subgroups, uneven
teacher quality, high dropout rates, and other manifestations of an economically stratified society
that confront many schools and districts.
Distributed leadership requires a change in principal and teacher roles. According to
Larson and Rieckoff (2013) distributed leadership requires school principals to fundamentally
alter their understanding of leadership and the ways they enact their roles as a school leader.
Principals working in schools with distributed leadership structures must shift from being the
bureaucratic leader at the top of the organization making decisions to focusing on building
leadership capacity in others. Principals will have to balance the role of transactional to
transformational leadership.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 28
In a study examining leadership styles of military leaders, Bass et al. (2003), revealed
that the incorporation of both transactional and transformational approaches were required in
order to maintain high standards of performance. According to Sergiovanni (2007)
transformational leadership and the use of collaborative efforts and shared decision-making by
stakeholders toward a common vision or goal lead to positive changes that support student
achievement.
Bass, et al (2003) state that the development of clear expectations and goals for operation
in conjunction with the implementation of organizational processes and procedures to maintain a
positive learning environment are focal points of the transactional leadership style.
Transactional leadership helps to clarify expectations and recognize the collective work of
individuals when organizational goals are met. Goodwin et al. (2001) indicate that the process of
positive reinforcement in response to goal attainment is effective in strengthening professional
dispositions of faculty and staff and builds a commitment and the willingness to work towards
organizational success.
In a study conducted by Spillane, Camburn and Pareja (2007), researchers examined the
daily activities of school principals to investigate who lead and managed activities related to
operations and activities pertaining to curriculum and instruction when the principal participated
in the activities but did not take a lead role in the activity. Findings indicated that the work of
leading and managing activities related to operations and curriculum and instruction involved
multiple people throughout a school. Data revealed that individuals other than the principal lead
and managed approximately 25% of the related activities. Data also showed that principals were
more likely to lead activities related to operations (78%) than activities related to curriculum and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 29
instruction (55%). Based on the findings from this study, Spillane et al. (2007) suggested that
distributed approaches to leadership should be fostered in schools.
Distributed leadership is the sharing, spreading, and distributing of leadership work
across individuals and roles throughout organizations (Casky, 2010). Distributed leadership
encourages people to work together to produce greater outcomes than they would by working in
isolation. Distributed leadership enables individuals to acquire knowledge and build capacity
within the context of relationships.
Several studies have been conducted to look at the relationship between distributed
leadership practices and student outcomes. One such study was conducted by Leithwood and
Jantzi (1999), who studied the correlation between distributions of leadership and student
engagement. The researchers found that expanding leadership activities and roles to teachers
positively affected teacher effectiveness and student engagement. Another comprehensive study
was led by Silins and Mulford (2002) and focused on leadership effects on student learning.
Findings from this study that included data from over 2,500 teachers and principals concluded
that student outcomes are more likely to improve when leadership is distributed and teachers are
empowered to engage in activities deemed important to them.
According to Harris (2009), distributed leadership emphasizes interaction and
interdependence rather than reaction and dependency and includes the following elements:
 Distributed leadership implies broad based involvement in leadership practice where
there are multiple sources of leadership – both formal and informal.
 Distributed leadership emphasizes expertise rather than role – those with expertise lead
according to organizational needs.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 30
 Distributed leadership necessitates deep trust and reciprocal support among
organizational members.
 Distributed leadership equates with broad based leadership practice and requires power
sharing.
 Distributed leadership varies according to context and there will be differential outcomes
depending on the pattern or patterns of distribution.
Distributed leadership implies a form of collaborative individualism where individuals
work collaboratively to act upon and transform systems (Harris, 2008). Successful school
change requires collective effort (Ballek et al., 2005). A more resilient organization is created
when leadership is distributed throughout the entire institution and improvements can be
sustained regardless of changes in personnel (Rutherford, 2006).
School Culture
School culture is defined as the guiding beliefs and expectations evident in the way a
school operates (Waldron & McLesky, 2010). Cultural influences are a critical factor in school
reform efforts. Culture is not static but is continually reshaped and redefined by the interactions
of everyone within a school system (Patterson et al., 2008). Culture is a phenomenon that
evolves over time and dictates how things are done and how people act (Gruenert, 2000). School
cultures are important in determining if school improvement efforts take hold and are sustained.
Reforms that strive for educational excellence are likely to fail unless they are meaningfully
linked to school culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
The way schools are structured and organized is indicative of the values, beliefs and
fundamental assumptions that are espoused (Patterson et al., 2008). School improvement efforts
built around collaborative cultures and collegial relationships produce positive results. Research
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 31
revealed that collaborative cultures lead to higher levels of trust and respect among colleagues,
improved professional satisfaction, improved instructional practices, better outcomes for all
students, and school change that is maintained over time (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Studies
showed that there is a correlation among school structure, culture, instructional practices and
student performance (Patterson et al., 2008).
Rutherford (2006) studied the impact of structural and cultural changes by analyzing the
implementation of the Edison Reform Model (ESM). The ESM was designed to create schools
that maintain a professional environment coupled with professional development opportunities
for teachers. In addition, ESM focused on teacher empowerment and collaboration with
administration. Results from this study indicate that organizational structures that allow teachers
to participate in shared decision-making help to establish collaborative cultures and provide
increased opportunities for teachers to take on leadership roles.
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) identified seven dimensions of healthy school cultures
that support teacher leadership:
1. Developmental focus – teachers are assisted in gaining new knowledge/skills
2. Recognition – teachers are recognized for their roles and contributions
3. Autonomy – teachers are encouraged to make improvements and innovations
4. Collegiality – teachers collaborate on instructional and student related matters
5. Participation – teachers are actively involved in making decisions
6. Open communication – teachers feel informed about what is happening
7. Positive environment – there is a general satisfaction with the school climate
Gomez et al. (2012) conducted a study to test a model of school culture and identify
important aspects of teacher-perceived cultural variables and the impact of teacher perception on
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 32
school performance. Data was gathered from 628 teachers working in 17 K – 8 schools and 42
middle schools across Southern California. Researchers studied variables such as the cultural
subsystem, organizational value subsystem and individual belief subsystem. Findings from the
study revealed that a school’s academic and social cultures are positively correlated in schools
that serve adolescents. In addition, the study showed some evidence that in K – 8 schools,
teacher perceptions about school values and school climate are directly and indirectly related to
student achievement.
Even though culture may not directly affect student achievement, culture does have an
impact because it provides the context in which educational processes such as teaching and
learning occur (Gruenert, 2000). Gruenert further states that collaborative school cultures
provide an effective context for student and teacher learning. Structures that are deliberately
built to support collaboration are the key (Gideon, 2002).
Teacher Leadership
The future of school leadership resides in a distributed framework that permits teachers to
be collectively involved in the leadership of the school (Muijs & Harris, 2003). Old models of
formal, one-person school leadership leave the substantial talents of teachers largely untapped
(Lambert, 2005). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) conclude that the difficult task of meeting the
challenges that schools currently face cannot be accomplished unless teachers begin to assume
some of the roles and responsibilities that were previously the domain of the principal.
Organizational models that distribute leadership functions in schools are dependent on the
growth, development, skill and motivation of teacher leaders (Rutherford, 2006). Distributed
leadership and teacher leadership are codependent constructs. Teacher leadership is a
phenomenon that requires teachers to walk a fine balance between desires to influence and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 33
improve school organizations and the individual calling to teach children and help them succeed
(Angelle and Schmid, 2007). Teacher leadership requires leadership capacity and a commitment
to contribute beyond one’s own classroom (Beachum & Dentith, 2004).
Definition of Teacher Leadership
The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008) defines teacher leadership as a
process through which teachers influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of the
school community to improve teaching and learning aimed at increasing student learning and
achievement. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) define teacher leaders as individuals who lead
within and beyond their classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of teacher
learners and leaders, and influence others towards improved educational practice. Teacher
leadership is not about teacher power, but, rather, focuses on mobilizing the still largely
untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance (Institute for Educational
Leadership, 2006). Teacher leadership is about actions that transform teaching and learning and
tie schools and communities together to advance learning and social sustainability (Davis &
Leon, 2009).
Teacher leadership requires an ability to encourage colleagues to change or engage in
activities they would not ordinarily consider without being influenced by someone else (Sherrill,
1999). Teacher leaders call others to action and energize them with the aim of improving
teaching and learning (Danielson, 2007). A teacher leader is a person who leads by example, has
credibility and expertise, is a problem solver, and relates well to others (Martin, 2007). Teacher
leaders are those who are willing to work alongside principals to envision a better future, foster
hope and honesty, tackle obstacles and impediments, and build community while improving the
educational climate (Beachum & Dentith, 2004).
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 34
Teacher leaders can serve in either a formal or informal role. Formal teacher leaders are
individuals who seek out opportunities to contribute towards school improvement and success.
Formal teacher leaders are appointed or selected through formalized processes. In contrast,
informal teacher leaders emerge spontaneously and organically from the teacher ranks through
collaborative school cultures that promote autonomy and innovation. Informal teacher leaders
take initiative to address problems and issues related to teaching practice. Informal teacher
leaders have no positional authority, but the influence they exhibit stems from the respect they
receive from their colleagues because of their insight and expertise (Danielson, 2007).
Waves of Teacher Leadership
The concept of teacher leadership evolved over time. Silva et al. (2000) explained the
first wave of teacher leadership as a time when teachers served in formal roles as grade-level
chairs and department leads. During the first wave, teacher leaders were viewed as
administrative managers who were responsible for operational and transactional tasks such as
ordering textbooks and maintaining instructional materials (Bond, 2011). The first wave of had
limited impact because teacher leaders were seen as another layer of bureaucratic hierarchy and
were often resented by peers.
A study by Feeney (2009) investigated the perceptions of department leaders regarding
their role in leadership and school reform. The results from the study revealed that department
leaders viewed their role as a formal position with responsibilities and tasks but did not see the
role as an interactive process among people. One conclusion drawn from the study is that the
concept of teacher leadership must shift from a managerial orientation towards a
transformational orientation focused on establishing a culture of learning in schools.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 35
During the second wave of teacher leadership, schools and districts tapped into the
instructional expertise of teachers by having them participate in various roles such as
instructional coach, mentor and master teacher (Silva et al., 2000). Schools and districts were
unable to support and sustain second wave teacher leaders due to limited resources and financial
constraints. Second wave teacher leaders were only moderately successful in influencing whole
school reform because they were often disconnected from daily classroom practice and were
perceived as an outside expert and not an equal partner in the process of teaching and learning.
Bond (2011) reports that the current generation of teacher leaders are engaged in the
work of modeling new instructional practices, collaborating with colleagues to improve student
learning, and fostering a generally more positive and productive school culture. Now in its third
wave (Silva et al., 2000), teacher leadership evolved into the work of individuals who are
involved in collective and collaborative efforts focused on school improvement and
organizational change.
Benefits of Teacher Leadership
Teachers have a unique perspective about teaching and know firsthand what is needed to
promote student learning. Teacher leaders, empowered by the confidence in themselves and
their colleagues, hold the key to improved learning and offer new contexts and alternatives for
genuine school change (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006).
Teacher leadership can transform a school’s culture and its program offerings (Danielson,
2007) in addition to helping to mobilize teacher expertise to improve the culture and instruction
in schools such that student learning is enhanced (Ross et al., 2011). Teachers who take
leadership roles in their schools are successful agents and conduits in promoting cultural change
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 36
because they push the school culture to become more inclusive and collaborative (Beachum &
Dentith, 2004).
Teacher leaders carry the weight of responsibility for ensuring that reforms take root in
classrooms and, because they care deeply about students and the institutions designed to help
students learn, they constantly look for ways to bridge the gap between the real and the ideal
(Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006). Teacher leaders are an essential component for improving
student achievement (Feeney, 2009). Teachers who lead positively effect change in schools for
the better (Phelps, 2008). When schools support good teachers into becoming great leaders,
seeds are planted that will enhance the teaching profession and enable students to reap the
reward of a high quality education (Dozier, 2007).
Empowering teachers to take on leadership roles enhances teachers’ self-esteem and
work satisfaction, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of performance due to higher motivation
as well as possibly higher levels of retention in the profession (Muijs & Harris, 2003). Ross et
al. (2011) argue that teacher leadership also enhances teachers’ status, builds leadership skills,
improves professional knowledge, and enhances teacher motivation and intellectual stimulation.
Teacher leadership reduces teacher isolation, enhances personal and professional satisfaction,
creates a sense of belonging, and provides opportunities for lifelong learning and continuous
growth. The development of teacher leaders may also encourage gifted educators to remain with
teaching rather than abandon the profession for one that offers greater opportunities for ongoing
challenge and advancement (Danielson, 2006). The ultimate benefit of teacher leadership is
improved practice and increased achievement for all students (Thornton, 2010).
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 37
Teacher Leader Standards
In 2008, a diverse group comprised of national organizations, institutions of higher
education, teacher practitioners, and state departments of education produced a set of teacher
leader standards modeled after the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and
State Standards for School Leaders (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). The
standards are designed to encourage professional conversations and dialogue among teaching
professionals about the knowledge, skills and competencies needed for teacher leaders to work in
tandem with administrators in support of quality teaching and student learning. The Teacher
Leader Standards (TLS) consist of seven domains that describe the attributes and characteristics
of teacher leadership (Table 3).
Table 3
Teacher Leader Standards
Domain Description Function(s)
I Fostering a collaborative
culture to support educator
development and student
learning

Utilize group processes; models effective skills in listening;
employs facilitation skills; strives to create an inclusive
culture; promotes effective interactions among colleagues
II Accessing and using
research to improve
practice and student
achievement
Assist in accessing and using research; facilitates the
analysis of student learning data; supports collaboration
with the higher education institutions and other
organizations; teaches and supports colleagues to collect,
analyze, and communicate data

III Promoting professional
learning for continuous
improvement
Collaborate to plan professional learning; uses adult
learning theory to respond to the diverse learning needs;
facilitates professional learning; identifies and uses
appropriate technologies

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 38
Table 3, continued
IV Facilitating improvements
in instruction and student
learning.
Facilitate the collection, analysis, and of classroom- and
school-based data; engages in reflective dialogue; supports
colleagues’ individual and collective reflection; serves as a
team leader; uses knowledge of existing and emerging
technologies; promotes instructional strategies that address
issues of diversity and equity

V Using assessments and
data for school and district
improvement
Increase the capacity of colleagues to identify and use
multiple assessment tools; collaborates in the design,
implementation, scoring, and interpretation of student data;
creates a climate of trust and critical reflection; works to
use assessment and data findings

VI Improving outreach and
collaboration with families
and community
Use knowledge and understanding of the different
backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and languages; models
and teaches effective communication and collaboration
skills; facilitates colleagues’ self-examination of
community culture and diversity and how they can develop
culturally responsive strategies; develops a shared
understanding of the diverse educational needs;
collaborates with families, communities, and colleagues to
develop comprehensive strategies to address diverse
educational needs

VII Advocating for student
learning and the profession
Share information regarding how local, state, and national
trends and policies can impact classroom practices and
expectations for student learning; works to identify and use
research to advocate for teaching and learning; collaborates
to select appropriate opportunities to advocate for the rights
and/or needs of students; advocates for access to
professional resources; represents and advocates for the
profession in contexts outside of the classroom
Source: Adapted from Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008)
According to the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008), the teacher leader
standards will guide the development of future teacher leaders and provide current teacher
leaders with a benchmark for assessing their leadership expertise.
Teacher Leadership Development
Existing school structures, value systems, and professional development programs are
often in conflict with the kind of change that is demanded to bring about sustainable
improvements (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lambert, 2002). In order for teacher leadership to succeed,
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 39
the work of teacher leaders must be situated in cultures and contexts that promote collaboration
and shared leadership. Conditions for successful teacher leadership call for principals to give up
power, to release control, to offer respect and trust, and to set up conditions for teachers to
practice leadership (Angelle, 2007). According to Angelle (2007), teachers do not need
autonomy to restore a sense of agency, but need a work culture that provides the capacity to
exercise leadership, coupled with the satisfaction of having an impact on different facets of the
organization.
Muijs and Harris (2006) conducted case studies across eight primary and secondary
schools in the United Kingdom. The purpose was to explore conditions that support and enhance
teacher leadership development. Research found that, within each case study school, there was
evidence of culture conditions and structural arrangements that favorably supported this type of
leaderhip. Muijs and Harris identified 10 factors that support teacher leadership:
1. Supportive culture
2. Supportive structures
3. Strong leadership
4. Commitment to action research and data analysis
5. Innovative forms of professional development
6. Co-ordinated improvement efforts
7. High levels of teacher participation and involvement
8. Collective creativity
9. Shared professional practice
10. Recognition and reward (p. 123)
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 40
Schools with successful teacher leaders provide role models, support, and resources, all
elements that are within the purview of the principal, thus making the principal critical to teacher
leadership (Angelle & DeHart, 2011). School administrators play a critical role in setting the
stage for its development, especially in understanding the concept and practice of teacher
leadership (Danielson, 2007). The success that teacher leaders enjoy will be determined to a
great extent by the support principals provide and how leadership capacity is developed in
schools (Ballek et al., 2005; Buckner & McDowelle, 2000). School leaders who promote and
empower teachers to participate in shared leadership create learning organizations built upon
collaboration, professional relationships, high expectations and continuous learning for all
(Angelle and Schmid, 2007).
All teachers possess the potential to become a teacher leader and, with guidance,
patience, and a little nudging by another caring leader, may commit to take on a leadership role
(Phelps, 2008). Leadership is an integral part of the teaching profession, and moral reasons
should compel all teachers to serve as leaders in some capacity (Bond, 2011). The education
profession needs all teachers to be active participants in helping schools to improve.
Frost and Durrant (2003) assert that successful teacher leadership requires genuine
development through the engagement of teachers’ hearts and minds and the reliance on the
collaborative relationships and social context wherein knowledge can be created, transferred and
transposed. Development of teacher leaders requires an assessment of the context in which
leadership functions are executed and activated. Organizational structures reflect important
values and beliefs and exercise considerable influence on the performance and outcomes of
teacher leadership, and components must be carefully examined to exclude barriers that may
impeded or interfere with its practice (Murphy, 2007).
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 41
Summary
School reform efforts advocate for schools and districts to share and distribute leadership
functions across the organization. Teachers are in a unique position to participate in distributed
leadership and positively influence the quality of teaching and student learning. Culture plays an
integral role in how leadership functions are distributed and sustained in schools. Teacher
leadership requires organizational structures that foster collaborative and collegial relationships.
Teacher leaders engage in activities that enhance and promote quality teaching and learning in
schools. The success of teacher leaders requires an awareness and understanding of the
interdependence between organizational leadership, school culture and the execution of functions
outlined in the teacher leader standards.
This chapter presented an overview of current literature and research on school culture,
school leadership, school leadership capacity, definitions of teacher leadership, its benefits,
teacher leader duties and teacher leadership development. Chapter Three presents a description
of the study’s research design, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, validity and
threats.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Teacher leadership emerged as an important factor in school reform. Teacher leaders are
in a unique position to advance the quality of teaching and learning because they engage in
practices that influence others towards continuous improvement. Research indicates that
distributed and shared models of leadership are a necessary structural component for school
improvement. However, the bureaucratic and rigid organizational structures that exist in many
schools inhibit the development and practice of teacher leadership.
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) purport that school contexts that support teacher
leadership possess seven key dimensions:
1. Developmental focus
2. Recognition
3. Autonomy
4. Collegiality
5. Participation
6. Open communication
7. Positive environment
The teacher leader standards consist of seven domains that describe the actions, functions
and behaviors of teacher leaders. According to the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium
(2008), the performance expectations of teacher leaders consist of the following domains:
a. Fostering collaborative cultures
b. Accessing and using research
c. Promoting professional learning
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 43
d. Facilitating improvements in teaching and learning
e. Promoting the use of assessments and data
f. Improving family and community outreach
g. Advocating for student learning and the profession (p. 9)
This study examines the relationship between organizational leadership structures, school culture
and teacher leadership by investigating the following research questions:
1. What factors support or inhibit teacher leadership practices in schools that promote
distributed leadership?
2. What are the perceived roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders in schools that promote
distributed leadership?
A sequential mixed-methods approach utilizing surveys, interviews and focus group was
selected for the research study. Mixed-method designs combine both quantitative and qualitative
approaches to research so that the overall strength of a study is greater than it would be if using
either approach alone (Creswell, 2009). Mixed-methods designs also provide greater
understanding of research problems and allow for increased reliability and validity through
triangulation of data. The initial phase involved collecting quantitative data followed by three
phases of qualitative data.

Figure 2: Mixed-Method Design
QUANTITATIVE
Data

(SURVEY)

QUALITATIVE
Data

(AD INTERVIEWS)

QUALITATIVE
Data

(TL INTERVIEWS)

QUALITATIVE
Data

(FOCUS GROUP)

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 44
The rationale for using this approach is that the quantitative data provides a general
understanding of the research questions while the qualitative approach further refines the data by
exploring the participants’ responses in greater depth (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).
Described in this chapter are the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection
and data analysis. The purpose of this study was to examine factors that support or inhibit the
practices of teacher leaders in distributed leadership settings. In addition, the study sought to
examine teacher leadership practices in schools that integrate distributed leadership structures.
The study presupposes certain conditions must exist in schools to support teacher leadership and
improve the effectiveness of teacher leaders as they execute the functions outlined in the teacher
leader standards.
Sample and Population
The population consisted of K – 12 schools in a large, urban Southern California school
district. The sample consisted of one elementary school, one middle school and one high school
within the large, urban Southern California school district. The unit of analysis was the three
school sites. Convenience sampling was employed to select study participants. Dornyei (2007)
states that convenience sampling is an appropriate technique if the sample meets certain practical
criteria, such as geographical proximity, availability at a certain time, easy accessibility, or the
willingness to volunteer. Creswell (2009) further states that researchers employ convenience
sampling when studying naturally formed groups such as classrooms, organizations and family
units. Selection criteria were established to enhance the generalizability of results.
School accountability measures require school to meet performance measures that require
a shift in leadership roles and require collaborative and participatory organizational structures
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium,
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 45
2008). Researchers have found that collaborative (distributed) leadership structures positively
affect teacher effectiveness, student engagement and student outcomes (Leithwood & Jantxi,
1999; Sillins & Mulford, 2002). In addition, teacher leaders are an essential component for
improving student achievement (Freeney, 2009). Participants were selected based on the
presence of collaborative (distributed) organizational structures, establishment of teacher leaders
and gains in student achievement using API. The California Academic Performance Index (API)
school goal is 800. Hence, the following criteria were used: a) K-12 public school, b) distributed
leadership structure, c) formal teacher leaders and d) 2013 Academic Performance Index >700).
Online resources such as school websites, California Department of Education (CDE) DataQuest
website and the Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data) website were used to gather school data.
Table 4
School Selection Criteria
Criteria Elementary School
(A)
Middle School
(B)
High School
(C)
K-12 Public
School
Yes Yes Yes
Distributed
Leadership
Structure(s)
School leadership team
Grade level teams
School council
Ad hoc committees
Leadership team
School council
Collaborative teams
Behavior support team
Ad hoc committees
Leadership council
Learning communities
Grade-Content teams
School council
Type(s) of
Formal
Teacher
Leader
Roles
Grade level chair
Ad hoc committee leads
Instructional coach
Bilingual coordinator
Title I coordinator
Leadership team reps
School council reps
Department chairs
Content lead teachers
Ad hoc committee leads
Leadership team reps
School council reps
Department chairs
SLC leads
Leadership council reps
School governance reps
2013
Academic
Performance
Index >700
842 747 834

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 46
Schools were identified based on selected criteria and principals were contacted by
telephone to schedule a meeting to discuss research study and request voluntary participation.
Principals at all three schools voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. School demographic
information is displayed below.
Table 5
School Demographic Information
Category Elementary
(A)
Middle
(B)
High
(C)
Total Enrollment 702 524 968
American-Indian/ Alaska Native 1 0 2
Asian 1 0 8
Native American 1 0 5
Filipino 0 1 37
Hispanic/Latino 574 522 697
Black/African American 124 1 54
White 1 0 0
Two or More Races 0 0 20
None Reported 0 0 145
English Learners 298 82 39
Free/Reduced Price Meals 611 378 347
Administrators 2 1 5
Teachers 33 22 48
Pupil Teacher Ratio 21.3 23.8 20.2
Classified Staff 25 2 7
Language Arts Percent Proficient (Total Tested) 61% 43% 69%
Math Percent Proficient (Total Tested) 76% 42% 40%

A comparative analysis of school demographic data reveals that Hispanic/Latino students
represent the largest minority group on each campus. Approximately 42% at School A are
English Learners compared to, respectively, 16% and 4% of students at School B and School C.
At School A and School B, the percentage of students eligible for free/reduced lunch total 87%
and 72%, respectively. Only 36% of students at School C show eligibility for free/reduced-price
lunch. There are less than 50 full time teachers working at each site. Across all three sites, the
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 47
pupil-teacher ratio is less than 25:1. In 2013, more than 60%of students at School A and School
C scored proficient or advanced on the CST English/Language Arts test. School A had the
largest percentage (76%) of students performing proficient or advanced on the CST Math test,
with 42% and 40% of students scoring proficient or advanced respectively for School B and
School C.
School Profiles
School A is an elementary school with 702 students in grades K through 5. The API
score in 2013 was 842. Hispanic/Latino (82%) and Black/African American (18%) students
make up the largest ethnic and racial groups. Approximately 42% of the students are English
Learners and 87% of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The 2013 CST
results show that of students tested, 61% scored proficient or above in language arts and 76%
scored proficient or above in math. The faculty consists of two administrators, 33 teachers and
25 classified staff members. The pupil teacher ratio is 21.3.
School A is nestled in a residential community surrounded by single and multi-family
homes. The grounds are clean and well maintained. The walls are brightly painted with positive
affirmations and slogans such as “Bully Free Zone”, “Reach for the Stars”, “800 Club”, and “On
My Way to College”. A variety of distributed leadership structures are in place such as a school
leadership team, grade level teams, school site council and ad hoc teacher committees. Grade
level teams meet weekly. The leadership team and school site council meet monthly. Ad hoc
committees meet as needed to plan school-wide events such as Read Across America, Family
Math Night and the annual Science Fair. Formal teacher leader positions consist of grade level
chairpersons, ad hoc committee chairpersons, instructional coaches, bilingual coordinator, Title I
coordinator, leadership team and school site council members.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 48
School B is a middle school with 524 students in grades 6 through 8. The API score in
2013 was 747. Hispanic/Latino (99.6%) students make up the largest ethnic/racial demographic.
Approximately 15.6% of the students are English Learners and 72% qualify for free or reduced-
price lunch. The 2013 CST results show that of students tested, 43% scored proficient or above
in language arts and 42% scored proficient or above in math. The faculty consists of one
administrator, 22 teachers and two classified staff members. The pupil teacher ratio is 23.8.
School B is situated in a densely populated area housed among residential, commercial
and industrial buildings. The school is a new construction co-located on the same campus with
another middle school. The two schools share a joint entrance and common areas like the
cafeteria, gymnasium and outdoor spaces. The corridors of the main building are lined with
college pennants representative of schools attended by faculty and staff. A large red banner
hangs on the wall in the main office with the number “747” written in bold letters. The number
represents the 2013 Academic Performance Index (API) score. The statewide goal for all
schools is 800. There are several distributed leadership structures in place such as the leadership
team, school site council, collaborative planning teams, positive behavior support team and ad
hoc committees. The leadership team meets every Tuesday. The collaborative planning teams
meet weekly on Thursdays and the school site council meets once a month. The positive
behavior support team is an ad hoc committee that was recently formed to address concerns with
student misconduct. The formal teacher leader positions consist of department chairpersons,
content lead teachers, ad hoc committee members, leadership team members, and school site
council members.
School C is a high school consisting of 968 students in grades 9 through 12. The API
score in 2013 was 834. The majority of students (72%) are Hispanic/Latino. Only four percent
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 49
of students are English Learners and approximately 36% of students qualify for free or reduced-
price lunch. The 2013 CST results show that of students tested, 69% scored proficient or above
in language arts and 40% scored proficient or above in math. The faculty consists of five
administrators, 48 teachers and seven classified staff members. The pupil teacher ratio is 20.2.
School C is located near a civic center and bordered by large commercial, retail and high-
rise buildings. The school is housed in a converted two-story office building. The grounds are
immaculate and a business-like, professional aura surrounds the campus. Visitors are buzzed
into the foyer through a set of glass double doors. A wide staircase lined with glass railings sits
to the left of the front entrance and an all-access (keyless entry) elevator is located across the hall
to the right. The foyer is lined with college pennants displayed below a slogan that reads
“School C We’re College Bound”. Banquette-type benches with soft cushions line one side of
the wall leading up to the main counter. The building is separated into eight wings, four wings
on each floor. Each wing is dedicated to a specific academic department like English, math,
science and social studies. There are murals painted on walls throughout the building. The
distributed leadership structures currently in place are the leadership council, small learning
communities, grade level-content teams and school governance. The leadership council meets
Friday afternoons and small learning communities (SLC) and grade level teams meet bi-monthly,
every other week on Monday mornings. Formal teacher leader positions consist of department
chairpersons, SLC lead teachers, leadership team member and school governance council
member.
Instrumentation
Multiple data collection methods such as surveys, interviews and a focus group were
employed to study the phenomenon of teacher leadership in public schools that promote
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 50
distributed leadership. The use of multiple data sources helps to make sense of data and organize
it into categories that cut across all data sources (Creswell, 2009). The instruments were
carefully chosen and purposefully designed to answer the research questions. In phase one, the
TLSS survey was administered to gather information on favorableness between school culture
and teacher leadership. Teacher leader performance is influenced by organizational structure and
teacher leadership development requires an assessment of school culture (Murphy, 2007;
Lambert, 2003). Surveys are used to gather information from large groups of people who would
not otherwise be feasible through an interview or focus group (Maxwell, 2002; Merriam, 2005).
Surveys can be used to describe individual and collective knowledge, feelings and behaviors.
Surveys provide a uniform and reliable method to collect and analyze data. Use of surveys
allows for efficient coding and interpretation of results.
Phases two and three consisted of interviews with school administrators and formal
teacher leaders. Interviews allow researchers to enter into someone else’s perspective and to
obtain rich data (Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2009). Administrator and teacher leader interview
protocols were designed to identify perceptions and give insight into principal and teacher
perspectives about teacher leadership practice in distributed leadership schools
Phase four consisted of a focus group with teacher leaders to validate data collected
during data collected during teacher leader interviews. The focus group protocol was developed
to provide greater insight into teacher leadership practices in public schools. Qualitative inquiry
provides an opportunity to explore topics and phenomenon in depth. Table 4 provides a
framework to align literature, research questions and instrumentation.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 51
Table 6
Alignment between Instrumentation, Research Questions and Literature Review, Research
Question and Instrumentation
Instrumentation Research Questions Literature Review
Surveys,
interviews with
administrators/
teacher leaders
and focus group
RQ1 – What factors
support or inhibit
teacher leadership
practices in schools
that promote
distributed
leadership?
Development of teacher leaders requires an assessment of
the context in which leadership functions are executed and
activated (Lambert, 2003). Organizational structures
exercise considerable influence on the performance and
outcomes of teacher leadership (Murphy, 2007). Teachers
need a work culture that provides the capacity to exercise
leadership, job satisfaction and opportunities to impact
different facets of the organization (Angelle, 2007).
Successful teacher leadership requires collaborative
relationships and social contexts where knowledge can be
created, transferred and transposed (Frost & Durrant,
2003). The success of teacher leaders is determined by
principal support and how leadership capacity is
developed in schools (Ballek et al., 2005; Buckner &
McDowelle, 2000).
Interviews with
administrators/tea
cher leaders and
focus group
RQ2 – What are the
perceived roles and
responsibilities of
teacher leaders in
schools that promote
distributed
leadership?
Teacher leadership is about actions that transform
teaching and learning (Davis & Leon, 2009). Teacher
Leadership is about collective and collaborative efforts
focused on school improvement and organizational change
(Silva et al., 2007). The current generation of teacher
leaders model new instructional practices, collaborate with
colleagues and foster a generally more positive and
productive school culture (Bond, 2011). Teacher leaders
call others to action and energize them with the aim of
improving teaching and learning (Danielson, 2007).
Teacher leadership helps to mobilize teacher expertise and
improve the culture and instruction in schools resulting in
better student outcomes (Ross et al., 2011).

RQ1 was answered using the TLSS survey and teacher leader interviews. The survey
was used to measure the frequency of school norms, practices and rituals that enhance teacher
leadership. Successful teacher leadership requires collaborative relationships and social
contexts where knowledge can be created, transferred and transposed (Frost & Durrant, 2003).
Teachers need a work culture that provides the capacity to exercise leadership, increased job
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 52
satisfaction and multiple opportunities to have an impact on different facets of the organization
(Angelle, 2007).
The surveys were distributed to faculty/staff during regularly scheduled professional
development meetings at each site. All faculty and staff were invited to participate. At School A
and School C, the researcher was on hand to collect surveys at the end of the meeting. At School
B, only two surveys were completed during the professional development meeting, so the
surveys were left behind and were picked up two days later.
Teacher leader interviews were conducted to validate survey data and provide rich
descriptions and about perceptions regarding factors that facilitate or inhibit teacher leadership
practice. Interview participants included administrators and formal teacher leaders. Principals
from each school were interviewed along with nine formal teacher leaders. Formal teacher
leaders were identified through school directories and confirmed by principals. The email
addresses of formal teacher leaders were gleaned from participant rosters signed during survey
distribution. Invitations were sent via email to all formal teacher leaders at each school.
A total of 14 teacher leaders expressed interest in participating, but, due to slow response
rates, only three interview participants were selected from each site. Interview responses were
coded to the seven dimensions measured by the TLSS. The commonalities and differences in
dimensions such as developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality, participation, open
communication and positive environment across three schools were explored.
RQ2 was answered using administrator interviews, teacher leader interviews and a focus
group. Interview and focus group protocols were designed to gather information about the
functions and roles of teacher leaders. A set of teacher leader standards were developed by the
Teacher Leader Exploratory Consortium (2008) to codify teacher leader functions. Teacher
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 53
leaders call others to action and mobilize teacher expertise to improve school culture, instruction
and student learning (Danielson, 2007; Ross et al., 2011). The current generation of teacher
leaders engages in practices like modeling new instructional practices, collaborating with
colleagues and fostering a generally more positive and productive school culture (Bond, 2011).
Interview participants included administrators and formal teacher leaders. Formal
teacher leaders at each site were invited to participate in a focus group. An email invitation was
sent to request participation but the response rate for focus group participation was slow.
Telephone contact was made with nine formal teacher leaders who participated in the interview
phase of the study but only four individuals expressed an interest in focus group participation.
Therefore, due to geographical and time constraints, only one focus group was convened.
Interview and focus group responses were coded using the teacher leader standard domains.
Surveys
Fink (2009), states that surveys can be used to gather information from people to explain
their feelings, values, and behavior. Permission was granted to use the Teacher Leadership
School Survey (TLSS) developed by Katzenmeyer and Katzenmeyer (Appendix A). The survey
consists of a 49-item questionnaire with a five point Likert scale that contained the following
forced-answer choices: 1-Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Sometimes, 4-Often, and 5-Always. The survey
measured perceptions about seven dimensions of school culture that support teacher leadership:
1) developmental focus, 2) recognition, 3) autonomy, 4) collegiality, 5) participation, 6) open
communication, and 7) positive environment.
The TLSS was developed by a panel of content experts who identified a set of survey
items to assess school readiness for teacher leadership. The content validity for the TLSS was
established by sampling 300 teachers to determine the factors showing internal consistency and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 54
minimal correlation. The process was repeated until all unrelated items were eliminated. The
items that showed the strongest correlations were identified and converted into a 49-item survey
instrument. Survey reliability was established through a manipulation of Cronbach’s alpha
(Table 7).
Table 7
Internal Consistency (Cronbach Alpha) Reliabilities of the TLSS Scales
Scales name Alpha reliability Items
Developmental focus .87 1-7
Recognition .88 8-14
Autonomy .87 15-21
Collegiality .83 22-28
Participation .87 29-35
Open communication .93 36-42
Positive Environment .87 43-49
Source: From “Developing the survey items and establishing content validity, scale names, and reliability of the
teacher leadership school survey (TLSS) by Katzenmeyer, W.G. (2003), Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Reprinted with permission.

Survey responses were used to measure administrator and teacher perceptions of school
culture. Survey responses were also used to gauge the degree to which school conditions
supported or inhibited teacher leadership. High numerical values indicated a definitive school
culture that supports teacher leadership. Low numerical values indicated a tentative school
culture that inhibits the implementation of teacher leadership practices.
Interviews. In their definition of qualitative research, Heppner and Heppner (2004)
explain that qualitative researchers are interested in capturing an individual’s point of view
through multiple strategies such as interviewing and observation. Semi-structured interviews are
guided by a set of questions aligned to the issue or phenomenon under exploration (Merriam,
2009). Interviews were conducted with three administrators using the school administrator
interview protocol (Appendix B), which comprised 10 questions developed by the researcher.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 55
Questions 1 through 5 were designed to gather information on distributed leadership activities
and cultural factors. Questions 6 through 10 were developed to gain insight into administrator
perspectives on teacher leadership. The school administrator interview protocol was field tested
with administrators who did not participate in the study but were identified as working at schools
that promote distributed leadership. Administrators were asked to give feedback on the clarity of
questions. Pilot interviews were audiotaped and reviewed by the researcher to identify ways to
improve consistency and continuity of pacing while posing questions, probing and awaiting
participant responses. The information gained from the field test was used to make adjustments
to administrator interview questions. Interviews with administrators from School A and
School B were held off site during non-school hours. The administrator interview at
School C was held on site during school hours. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45
minutes. Interview responses revealed administrator perspectives on factors that support or
inhibit teacher leader practice (RQ1) and the role and function of teacher leaders (RQ2).
Interviews were conducted with nine formal teacher leaders using the formal teacher
leader protocol (Appendix C), which comprised 10 questions developed by the researcher.
Questions 1 through 3 were designed to gather demographic information about formal teacher
leaders. Table 8 shows the demographic information for teacher leaders who participated in the
semi-structured interviews and focus groups.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 56
Table 8
Demographics for Teacher Leader Interview Participants
Teacher Leader
(TL)
Total
Years
Teaching
Highest Level of
Education
Teacher Leader Roles
(past 3 yrs.)
#1 (Elementary School) 10 Master’s degree Grade level chair
School site council
#2 (Elementary School) 16 Master’s degree Grade level chair

#3 (Elementary School) 11 Master’s degree Instructional coach
Mentor teacher
#4 (Middle School) 15 Master’s degree Department chair
Academy lead teacher
School site council
#5 (Middle School) 18 Master’s degree Department chair
Gifted coordinator
School site council
#6 (Middle School) 7 Master’s
coursework
Department chair
Leadership team
#7 (High School) 37 Master’s degree Department chair
Leadership team
#8 (High School) 16 Master’s degree SLC lead
Leadership team
#9 (High School) 20 Master’s
coursework
SLC lead

The teacher leader interview participants averaged a total 17.5 years’ teaching
experience. The total number of teaching years ranged from a low of seven years and high of 37
years. The average number of years at current site was 12.5 years. All teacher leaders
completed master’s level coursework and seven out of nine participants earned a master’s
degree. The nine participants served in leadership roles such as academy lead, department chair,
gifted coordinator, grade level chair, instructional coach, leadership team member, mentor
teacher, school site council member, or school governance committee member.
Questions 4 and 5 were developed to gain insight into the perceived role and functions of
teacher leaders. Questions 6 through 10 focused on soliciting responses aligned to factors that
support or inhibit teacher leader practice. The teacher leader interview protocol was field tested
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 57
with three teacher leaders identified as formal teacher leaders who did not participate in the
actual study. The teacher leaders were asked to give feedback on the clarity of questions. The
pilot interviews were audiotaped, and the audiotapes were reviewed by the researcher to identify
ways to improve consistency and continuity of pacing while posing questions, probing and
awaiting participant responses. The information gained from the field test was used to make
adjustments to interview questions. Due to time and geographical constraints, questions were
emailed to teacher leader interview participants in advance and interviews were conducted by
telephone during non-school hours. Each telephone interview lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Interview responses revealed teacher leader perspectives on factors that support or inhibit teacher
leader practice (RQ1) and the role and function of teacher leaders (RQ2).
Focus Group
According to Merriam (2009), focus groups allow a researcher to get high-quality data in
a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others.
The aim of focus groups is to understand the participants’ meanings and interpretations on a
specific issue or topic. A focus group was convened with four formal teacher leaders using the
focus group protocol (Appendix D) comprised of 10 questions developed by the researcher. The
focus group consisted of three teachers from School A and one teacher from School C.
Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were designed to gather information on teacher leader roles and
functions. Questions 4, 8, 9 and 10 were developed to address factors that support or inhibit
teacher leader practice. The focus group protocol pilot was conducted by email. The questions
were sent to six teacher leaders who did not participate in the study. Pilot teacher leaders were
asked to review and give feedback on clarity of the questions. Information gathered from the
pilot and critique was used to make adjustments to interview questions. Focus group participants
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 58
were selected based on their availability and willingness to participate. The study was initially
designed to include one focus group at each school. However, due to inconsistent responses and
time constraints one focus group was finally convened. The focus group was held during non-
school hours at a central location. The focus group lasted approximately 1 ½ hours.
Data Collection
The initial step in the data collection process was to obtain permission from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC). After USC
IRB granted approval, principals were contacted at school sites that met sample criteria.
Meetings were held with principals who voluntarily agreed to participate to distribute
information sheets and discuss the research study. Data collection began in mid-January 2014
and concluded in May 2014.
Table 9
Schedule for Data Collection
Instrumentation January
2014
February
2014
March
2014
April
2014
May 2014
Surveys

Analysis

Principal
Interview

Analysis

Teacher Leader
Interview

Analysis

Focus
Group

Analysis

Field Notes

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 59
Data was collected through mixed methods using surveys, interviews and a focus group.
The data collection sequence began with surveys, followed by administrator interviews, teacher
leader interviews and a focus group. The researcher developed instrumentation and data
collection methods using comparable methods of inquiry to increase internal validity and data
triangulation:
Triangulation involves using different methods as a check on one another, seeing if
methods with different strengths and limitation all support a single conclusion. This
strategy reduces the risk that your conclusions will reflect only the biases of a specific
method, and allows you to gain a more secure understanding of the issues you are
investigating. (Maxwell, 2013, p. 102)
Table 10
Summary of Data Collection and Participants by School Type
Instrumentation Elementary
School
(A)
Middle
School
(B)
High
School
(C)
Survey (*Participation Rate) 21 (60%) 10 (43%) 49 (92.5%)
Administrator Interviews 1 1 1
Teacher Leader Interviews 3 3 3
Focus Group 3 0 1
*Participation rate was calculated by dividing the number of completed surveys collected by the
total number of certificated staff members at each site (administrators and teachers).

Survey
Survey participants were 80 faculty and staff members across three sites. The survey
completion rates at School A, School B and School C were 60%, 43% and 92.5% respectively.
The high participation rate at School C was attributed to the fact that survey completion was the
only agenda item for the professional development meeting. At School A and School B, the
survey was not listed on the agenda, but was an add-on request at the end of the professional
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 60
development meeting. Teacher leader interviews totaled nine participants. There were three
teacher leaders interviewed from School A, School B and School C. A focus group was
convened with participants representing School A and School C.
Surveys were administered during faculty meetings and team meetings during the months
of January and February 2014 with permission granted by the principal. Faculty was informed
that participation was voluntary and volunteers were asked to sign participation rosters.
Participants were given approximately 20 minutes to complete paper and pencil surveys.
Participants responded to 49 questions about school context and conditions that support teacher
leadership. Surveys were collected by researcher and kept in a locked cabinet until researcher
was able to conduct and complete data analysis. The overall scores for each dimension were used
to identify perceptions about the frequency of activities and behaviors that influence school
culture and support teacher leadership.
Interviews
During the months of February and March 2014, administrator interviews were
conducted with one administrator from each site. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2003), when
researchers consider and provide for the comfort level of participants, it increases their level of
confidence and trust with the interviewer. Interviews with administrators from School A and
School B were held off-site during non-school hours where the participants felt comfortable and
were not distracted by interruptions during the school day. Administrator interviews for School
A and School B were audiotaped with permission granted by the participants.
The administrator interview for School C was not audiotaped. The entire interview was
recorded by hand. The reason for using this technique was because the interview started late and
the administrator felt more comfortable conducting the interview as we toured the campus. The
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 61
interview was scheduled for 7:00 a.m. to provide ample time before school started. Unforeseen
circumstances caused the principal to arrive late. Upon arrival, he was immediately called into a
parent conference and afterwards dealt with an issue involving school keys and facility access.
After things settled down, he suggested that we walk and talk. The researcher determined that it
was easier to record by hand in lieu of dealing with complex issues possibly encountered during
the tour, such as stabilizing the recording device, muting background noise and accessing the
school administrator protocol document.
Telephone interviews were conducted with nine teacher leaders across three school sites
during the months of March, April and May 2014. Interviews were recorded by hand and
audiotaped with permission granted by the participants. Telephone interviews with teacher
leaders were conducted during non-school hours at a time convenient for each participant. All
interviews were transcribed and coded using categories derived from TLSS dimensions of school
culture and teacher leader standard domains
Administrator and teacher leader interviews were transcribed and coded using categories
derived from the TLSS seven dimensions of school culture and teacher leader standard domains.
The transcription of the interview sessions took place almost immediately after each interview to
ensure accuracy of participant statements for data analysis (Patton, 2002).
Focus Group
A focus group was convened with three teacher leaders from School A and one teacher
leader from School C in March 2014. The focus group was held during non-school hours at a
central location. Focus group participants granted permission to record the interview. The
researcher used voice recognition to identify participant responses. The focus group interview
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 62
was transcribed and coded using categories derived from the TLSS dimensions and teacher
leader standard domains.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted after each phase of the study. Simultaneous data collection
and data analysis is the preferred technique in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). The process
of data analysis for the research study consisted of preparing, organizing, and reducing the data
into themes (Creswell, 2009). Content analysis was used to make meaning of the alignment
between research questions, survey responses, coded interview and focus group transcripts.
Table 11
Data Analysis Aligned to Research Methodology
Data Collection
Method
Method of Analysis Rationale Function Implementation
Surveys
RQ1
Use of descriptive
statistics to code
frequency of
responses to seven
TLSS dimensions
Data triangulation
Quantitative
Foundational
information about
school structure and
norms for
professional practice
Documented
dimensions of school
cultural factors that
support teacher
leadership and
comparative analysis
Distributed to 80 teachers
across three sites;
Paper/pencil format
15 minutes to complete
Implemented January 2014 and
February 2014
Principal
Interviews
RQ1, RQ2
Interviews recorded
with permission from
participants and
responses transcribed
and coded according
to TLSS dimensions
and teacher leader
standard domains
Data triangulation
In-depth
Qualitative
Identify principal
perceptions of school
culture and teacher
leadership practice
One-on-one interviews; 3
principals
Conducted February 2014 and
March 2014
Teacher Leader
Interviews
RQ1, RQ2
Interviews recorded
with permission from
participants and
responses transcribed
and coded according
to TLSS dimensions
and teacher leader
standard domains
Data triangulation
In-depth
Qualitative
Identify teacher
leader perceptions of
school culture and
teacher leadership
practice
One-on-one interviews; 9
teacher leaders

Conducted March 2014 and
April 2014
Focus Group
RQ1, RQ2
Interview recorded
with permission from
participants and
responses transcribed
and coded according
to TLSS dimensions
and teacher leader
standard domains
Data triangulation
In-depth
Qualitative
Identify perceptions
of school culture and
teacher leadership
practice
Focus group; 1 group
comprised of 4 teacher leaders
Conducted March 2014

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 63
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey data. The descriptive statistics
included mean and mode derived from TLSS scaled scores for the seven dimensions. Participant
survey responses ranged from a score of one (“never”) to five (“always”). The mean score
represents the average participant response on a scale of 1 to 5. The mode score represents the
response with the highest selection frequency. School mean scores were calculated by raw scores
from each dimension and dividing by the total number of survey participants. School modes
were calculated by identifying the most commonly selected response for each dimension. The
cumulative mean and mode scores were used for comparative analysis.
Content analysis of interview and focus group transcripts was conducted in two phases.
In phase one, interview and focus group transcripts were reviewed and coded by aligning data to
seven TLSS dimension. Transcripts were read and re-read to identify descriptive phrases about
school cultural dimensions such as developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality,
participation, open communication and positive environment. In phase two, teacher leader
standard domains were used as a framework to examine data and identify descriptive phrases
aligned to teacher leader functions.
Validity and Threats
The researcher identified some possible threats to validity of data. These factors included
positionality of the researcher, distortion of data, emergence of discrepant data, and slow
response rates. During the process of data collection, the researcher employed several strategies
to address the threats to validity. The researcher triangulated the data, established rapport with
participants, asked open-ended questions, standardized data collection procedures, encouraged
participant elaboration, used code-recode techniques and maintained a field journal to records
thoughts, reactions and opinions of participants during the entire study. Field notes were
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 64
reviewed and analyzed to cross-check data and exclude researcher bias. These strategies were
effective in helping the researcher maintain consistency and dependability of findings.
Summary
This chapter presented a methodology of the research study with the intent of providing
information about the population, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
The methodology selected for the study was chosen to gather information about teacher
leadership in schools that model distributed leadership practices. Data collection was used to
study relationship between leadership structures, school culture and teacher leadership practice.
A detailed description of data analysis and findings will be presented in chapter 4.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 65
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine teacher leadership practices in schools that
espouse distributed leadership principles, as school improvement and reform efforts are more
likely to be successful when leadership is distributed throughout the school (Jackson, 2002).
Research shows that distributed leadership, coupled with teacher empowerment, has a positive
impact on achievement (Lieberman et al., 2000; Spillane et al., 2004). Teachers who take on
leadership roles in their schools are successful agents and conduits in promoting cultural change
because they push the school culture to become more inclusive and collaborative (Beachum &
Dentith, 2004). It is important for schools to create conditions and establish a context conducive
for successful teacher leadership.
The research relied upon surveys, interviews and a focus group to study factors that
support or inhibit teacher leadership and examine administrator and teacher perceptions of
teacher leader roles and functions. The quantitative phase of the study consisted of an
administration of the Teacher Leadership School Survey developed by Katzenmeyer and
Katzenmeyer (2005). The qualitative phase of the study consisted of interviews with
administrators and teacher leaders followed by a focus group of teacher leaders. Teacher leaders
were defined as any teacher such as grade-level or department chair, academy or small learning
community (SLC) lead, instructional coach, or member of a school governance committee
selected to serve in a leadership position with formal authority to address the needs of the school,
students and community.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 66
Research Question 1
The purpose of this question was to identify factors that facilitate or inhibit teacher leader
success. In addition, the question focused on perceptions of school culture and the extent to
which the seven dimensions of the TLSS were evident in distributed leadership schools. Survey
and interview responses were coded to the seven TLSS dimensions:
1. Developmental focus
2. Recognition
3. Autonomy
4. Collegiality
5. Participation
6. Open Communication
7. Positive Environment (p. 240)
Surveys
Surveys consisted of 49 items that used a forced-choice Likert scale from 1 “never” to 5
“always” to measure perceptions about the seven dimensions of school culture that support
teacher leadership. Participants were asked to read statements and report the frequency in which
the activity described in each statement reflected practices in their school. Each number
represented a different frequency of occurrence. Participant responses were manually entered
into an online data collection and analysis tool. Survey results were disaggregated by school
type and extracted from the online tool for in-depth review and analysis. Surveys were
administered to 80 participants across three schools.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 67

Figure 3. TLSS Survey Percentage of Responses by Answer Choice
Data presented in Figure 3 shows that based on total participant responses, 1% chose
“never”, 4% chose “rarely”, 22% chose “sometimes”, 43% chose “often”, and 30% chose
“always”. The survey option selected most by participants was 4 “often”. Additional
information regarding the frequency and percentage distribution for each dimension is displayed
below.
Table 12
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of TLSS Survey Responses across Schools
Dimension Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Always
F % F % F % F % F %
Developmental Focus 0 0 10 1.79 80 14.29 253 45.18 217 38.75
Recognition

1 0.18 18 3.21 109 19.46 216 38.7 261 38.7
Autonomy 1

0.18 20 3.57 106 18.93 237 42.32 196 35.00
Collegiality 0

0 25 4.46 114 20.36 249 44.46 172 30.71
Participation 6

1.07 39 6.96 159 28.39 231 41.25 125 22.32
Open Communication 1 0.18 31 5.54 140 25.00 259 46.25 129 23.04
Positive Environment 0 0 11 1.96 81 14.46 242 43.21 226 40.36

Overall, participants reported that TLSS dimensions are present in some capacity at all
three schools. Participant responses ranged from 1 “never” to 5 “always” for recognition,
autonomy, participation and open communication. Participant responses ranged from 2 “rarely”
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 68
to 5 “always” for developmental focus, collegiality and positive environment. The spread of
participant responses was most diverse for autonomy (SD=0.35) and least diverse for
participation (SD=0.09).
Table 13
TLSS Mean and Mode Scores by Dimension across Schools
Dimension N Mean Mode SD Min Max
Developmental Focus 80 4.20 4 0.19 2 5
Recognition 80 4.13 5 0.18 1 5
Autonomy 80 4.09 4 0.35 1 5
Collegiality 80 4.01 4 0.23 2 5
Participation 80 3.77 4 0.09 1 5
Open Communication 80 3.87 4 0.20 1 5
Positive Environment 80 4.22 5 0.15 2 5

The mean scores ranged from a low of 3.77 “sometimes” to a high of 4.23 “often”. The
mean scores reflect that activities related to all seven TLSS dimensions occur “sometimes”,
“often” or “always”. Participation had the lowest mean (3.77) and positive environment
dimension had the highest mean (4.22).
The mode scores ranged from 4 to 5. Based on mode scores TLSS dimensions occur
either “often” or “always”. Both recognition and positive environment dimensions had the
highest mode score of 5 “always”. The remaining five dimensions had a mode rating of 4
“sometimes”. Figure 4 shows the overall TLSS mean score for each dimension from lowest to
highest.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 69

Figure 4. Overall TLSS Mean & Mode Score by Dimension
The scores reflect that participants feel respected by one another, parents, students, and
administrators and are supported in their work (positive environment). According to Muijs and
Harris (2003), empowering teachers to take on leadership roles enhances self-esteem and work
satisfaction. Additionally, participants stated that they are given assistance and guidance in
learning new skills (developmental focus) and are recognized for the professional roles they take
on (recognition). Recognition helps to build confidence and offers contexts for improved
learning and genuine school change (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006).
The data also suggests that participants are encouraged to innovate and make changes to
the curriculum. Even though participants reported that they collaborate on instructional and
student-related matters (collegiality), they do not always feel informed about happenings around
school (communication) and have fewer opportunities to get involved in school decision making
(participation). A comparative analysis and discussion of each TLSS dimension is presented in
the following section.
1=Never 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Often 5=Always
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 70
School Comparative Analysis
Table 14
Teacher Leader School Survey (TLSS) Mean and Mode Scores by School Type
School N Mean Mode SD Min Max
Elementary
(A)
21

3.99 4 0.24 3.33 4.19
Middle
(B)
10 3.97 3 & 4 0.35 3.1 3.8
High
(C)
49

4.07 4 0.31 3.24 4.32

The total mean score for School A was 3.99 “sometimes” and total mode score was 4
“often”. Participant responses for School A ranged from 3.33 “sometimes” to 4.48 “often”.
Based on the majority of responses, teacher leadership is practiced more than “sometimes” and
closer to “often” at School A (elementary school). At School B, the total mean score was 3.97
“sometimes” and total mode scores were 3 “sometimes” and 4 “often”. Participant responses
reflected scores from 3.1 “sometime” to 4.6 “often”. Based on the data, teacher leadership is
also practiced above “sometimes” and closer to “often” at School B (middle school). At School
C, the total mean score was 4.07 “often and total mode score was 4 “often. Mean scores for
School C ranged from 3.24 “sometimes” to 4.53 “often”. The majority of participant responses
demonstrated that teacher leadership is practiced slightly above “often” at School C (high). The
data reflects a standard deviation for School A, School B and School C of 0.24, 0.35, and 0.31
respectively. Participant responses at School A were clustered closest to the mean score in
comparison to School B and School C. Participant responses from School B were clustered
farthest from the mean compared to School A and School C.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 71
Table 15
Teacher Leader School Survey (TLSS) Mean and Mode Scores by School Type & Dimension
School Dimension N Mean Mode SD Min Max
Elementary
(A)
Developmental Focus 21 4.23 4 0.15 4.00 4.38
Recognition 21 4.11 4 0.20 3.81 4.48
Autonomy 21 4.03 4 0.16 3.76 4.29
Collegiality 21 3.92 4 0.28 3.33 4.24
Participation 21 3.79 4 0.08 3.67 3.86
Open Communication 21 3.84 4 0.19 3.52 4.00
Positive Environment 21 4.05 4 0.25 3.76 4.19
Middle
(B)
Developmental Focus 10 4.01 4 0.27 3.7 4.5
Recognition 10 4.01 5 0.34 3.5 4.6
Autonomy 10 4.23 4 & 5 0.43 3.3 4.5
Collegiality 10 3.64 3 0.39 3.1 4.2
Participation 10 4.13 4 0.19 3.9 4.4
Open Communication 10 3.76 3 0.24 3.5 4.1
Positive Environment 10 4.00 3 0.19 3.80 4.3
High
(C)
Developmental Focus 49 4.24 4 0.22 3.90 4.51
Recognition 49 4.15 5 0.17 3.96 4.53
Autonomy 49 4.08 4 0.45 3.24 4.49
Collegiality 49 4.13 4 0.24 3.71 4.41
Participation 49 3.69 4 0.12 3.49 3.82
Open Communication 49 3.90 4 0.25 3.41 4.18
Positive Environment 49 4.34 4 0.11 4.16 4.53

Developmental Focus. Survey questions 1 through 7 were aligned to developmental
focus. School C, with 4.24, had the highest mean score, School A had the second highest, at
4.23, and School B had the lowest at 4.01. The mean and mode reveal that each school “often”
engages in developmental focus activities. The developmental focus mode for all three schools
was a “4-often”. Schools with a developmental focus assist teachers in gaining new knowledge
and skills, encourage teachers to help others learn, and provide teachers with guidance and
coaching. Examples of developmental focus include administrative support for professional
development, sharing ideas and strategies, and teachers supporting each other personally and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 72
professionally. Professional growth and teacher development are factors that facilitate teacher
leadership.
Recognition. Survey questions 8 through 14 were aligned to recognition. School A had
the highest mean score (4.11), School C had the second highest (4.02) and School B had the
lowest (4.01). The recognition mode was “4-often” at School A and “5-always” at Schools B
and C. The mean and mode scores show that each school “often” or “always” engage in
recognition activities. Schools with high scores in recognition engage in actions that recognize
the contribution and efforts of teachers, demonstrate mutual care and respect, and implement
protocols to acknowledge effective work. For example, ideas and opinions are valued, success is
celebrated, and administrators display confidence in faculty/staff. Teacher leadership is
facilitated through factors like shared commendations and professional validation.
Autonomy. Survey questions 15 through 21 addressed autonomy. School B had the
highest mean score (4.23), School C had the second highest (4.08) and School A had the lowest
(4.03). The mode for autonomy was “4-often” at Schools A and C. School B had two modes “4-
often” and “5-always”. The mean and mode scores reflect that activities aligned to autonomy
occur “4-often” or “5-always” at each school. Schools that exhibit autonomy encourage teachers
to become proactive, remove barriers to improvement and provide resources to support teacher
efforts. Examples of autonomy include encouraging teacher to make improvements, to take
initiative and use their professional judgment. Creativity and innovation promote teacher
leadership.
Collegiality. Survey questions 22 through 28 addressed collegiality. School C (4.13) had
the highest mean score, School A (3.92) had the second highest and School B (3.64) had the
lowest. The collegiality mode at Schools A and C was “4-often” and “3-sometimes” at School
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 73
B. The mean and mode scores express that each school exhibits collegiality “3-sometimes” or
“4-often”. Schools that support collegial environments encourage teacher collaboration on
instructional and student-related matters. For example, teachers engage in student-centered
conversations, collaborative problem-solving, and share resources/materials. Communal, non-
competitive and reciprocal relationships are factors that facilitate teacher leadership.
Participation. Survey questions 29 through 35 measured participation. School B (4.13)
had the highest mean score, School A (3.79) had the second highest and School C (3.69) had the
lowest. The mode for participation was “4-often” across all three schools. The mean and mode
scores express that each school exhibits collegiality “3-sometimes” or “4-often”. Participation is
demonstrated when teachers are actively involved in making decisions, have input on important
matters, and are selected by their peers for leadership roles and responsibilities. For instance,
teachers share decision-making responsibilities, have a say in how things are done and are sought
out by administration to share ideas and opinions. Making contributions and influencing school-
wide decisions are factors that facilitate teacher leadership.
Open Communication. Survey questions 36 through 42 measured open communication.
School C (3.90) had the highest mean score, School A (3.84) had the second highest and School
B (3.76) had the lowest. The mode for open communication was “4-often” at School A and C.
At School B, mode was “3-sometimes”. The mean and mode scores show that open
communication activities occur “3-sometimes” and “4-often” at each site. The dimension of
open communication denotes transparency in how information is sent and received and how
easily people share ideas and opinions. For example, staff works collaboratively to resolve
issues, feelings are shared openly and freely, meeting times are used productively, and no one is
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 74
blamed when things go wrong. Effective communication systems built on honesty and
transparency facilitate teacher leadership.
Positive Environment. Positive environment was measured using questions 43 through
49. School C (4.34) had the highest mean score, School A (4.05) had the next highest and
School B (4.00) had the lowest. The mode for positive environment was “4-often” at Schools A
and C and “3-sometimes” at School B. The mean and mode scores reveal that positive
environment activities happen either “3-sometimes” or “4-often” at each school. Positive school
environments exist when there is general work satisfaction, effective administration and respect
for others. For example, teachers are well respected, look forward to coming to work and work
in partnership to respond to student needs. Constructive and productive school climates are
necessary components for teacher leadership.
In summary, participants reported that the frequency of activities supporting the seven
dimensions was highest at School C and lowest at School A. Overall, School C reported the
highest scores on 4 out of 7 (57%) of the dimensions, School B reported the highest scores on 2
out of 7 (29%) of dimensions and School A reported the highest score on 1 out of 7 (14%) of
dimensions. At School A, developmental focus had the highest frequency (mean=4.23) followed
by recognition, positive environment, autonomy, collegiality, open communication, and
participation. At School B, autonomy had the highest frequency (mean=4.23) followed by
participation, recognition, developmental focus, positive environment, open communication, and
collegiality. At School C, positive environment was ranked first followed by developmental
focus, recognition, collegiality, autonomy, open communication and participation.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 75
Interviews. Administrator and teacher leader interview transcripts were also coded and
analyzed for word and phrases aligned to the seven TLSS dimensions. Responses are listed for
each TLSS dimension.
Developmental Focus. Schools assist teachers in gaining new knowledge:
The focus during our summer institute is on instruction, and it is where we do most of our
common core work. We set aside funding to make sure that we can support our teachers
to grow professionally and gain additional knowledge to perform better in their
classrooms.
We provide professional development for each other. We also work together to come up
with lessons, strategies and methods on how to do things better. We always support one
another and help each other learn new ways of teaching our kids.
I like sharing ideas especially when I work with new teachers. In the past, I worked as a
support provider for new teachers, so it is important for me to mentor them and help
them get through the struggle by sharing resources and just letting them know that it is ok
when they make mistakes because there is someone here to help.
Recognition. Schools recognize teachers for their roles and contributions:
We have a caught being good campaign for students, and we did something similar for
teachers during banked time Tuesdays. We start our meetings with kudos…and you can
see the smile on their face when someone acknowledged their efforts.
Every teacher is making a contribution in some way or another or else we could not
function. Most of the teachers come up with good ideas, so I validate them and
immediately take on their ideas and try to work those ideas.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 76
Once we know what is needed, we look for qualities in each other to make it happen.
Somebody else might be very strong with specific topic or standard so they will share
that knowledge and pass it on to others. Also our administrator gives us the confidence
to believe that we can do something and once she shows confidence in you it pushes you
to do your very best.
Autonomy. Schools encourage teachers to make improvements and innovations:
Most of the problems and solutions come directly from teachers who share during the
meeting. For example, some teachers were complaining about the lack of communication
in regards to field trips and another teacher complained about student discipline. All the
issues are brought up to leadership team and it is their job to put processes in place to
address it.
The lead teachers and department chairs speak on behalf of the teachers and discuss the
needs of the grade level and department. Once the needs have been identified we discuss
what we can do about it.
I feel like they (administration) are giving us more leeway to decide on our own what is
best for the students. Also, our administrator knows how to find money and manage the
budget in order to support the teachers and provide better resources for our students. I
feel very comfortable bringing my needs to the administration.
Collegiality. Teachers collaborate on instructional and student-related matters:
The way that our school is designed, collaboration is built into the culture of the school.
Our teacher leaders conduct formal and informal class observations and give critique and
feedback to their peers. Also, teachers meet weekly on Monday mornings for
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 77
professional development. So, on Mondays, we have structured collaborative meetings
that are run by the lead teachers and department chairs.
We basically collaborate on ideas and are given one hour a week to meet in teams and
brainstorm together. We are open to ideas and do a lot of sharing and disseminate a lot
of information to each other. Sometimes, we will see each other in the hallway and say
hey let’s get together on an activity that we can execute with the class.
We also discuss what we have done already, did it work, did it not work and talk about
what we should do next. We visit each other’s classrooms to get ideas and because of the
articulation we get to see the connection between the different levels. It is so powerful.
Participation. Teachers are actively involved in decision-making:
At our school, every teacher signs up for a committee. These are live working
committees and every teacher is expected to participate and carry their weight. We have
a local school leadership council comprised of administration, teachers, parents and
staff. The teachers are voted in by their peers so once a month we meet to get input on
important decisions and discuss school wide concerns.
There are 10 teacher members on the leadership team. We meet every Tuesday to
discuss matters related to testing, budget, field trip protocols, bell schedules and usage of
the auditorium and bell schedule. We also have teachers participate on our school site
council but it is more restricted to discussions about categorical budgets and how to
allocate our resources.
We have a leadership team, and everyone at the school has a voice. The leadership
council is comprised of lead teachers and department chairs. We meet to discuss the
calendar, plan activities and talk about any operational and school-wide concerns. The
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 78
leadership council also plans the spring mini-camp where we meet for mid-year
reflection, discuss future planning and establish goals for the upcoming year.
Open Communication. Teachers feel informed about what is happening:
Everyone has a voice. I meet with teachers regularly and seek their advice and opinions
because I am always looking to grow as a leader. I maintain an open door policy. They
can come in to speak with me anytime about anything, and I am always here to support
them and help in any way I can.
I serve as the mediator between my colleagues and the principal. I am responsible for
bringing information back and forth. It is important to have strong communication and
clear communication between administration and the teachers.
A clearly articulated vision from administration is key.
You are always going to have people who it is not easy for them to take other people’s
ideas…but we encourage everyone to bring whatever idea you have to the table.
Positive Environment. There is a general satisfaction with school climate:
I always go back to what a veteran told me when she said that, unless they know that you
care, they really don’t care what you know. Teachers are on the front line and I always
try to encourage them by setting a positive tone. I get excited when I see teachers scoring
assessments and having conversations about rigor and student expectations. It is
refreshing when you see teachers vacillating between a two and a three while having
honest and respectful conversations about expectations for student work.
We have a great faculty. We focus on developing a professional culture that sends a
message that we are all here to work and support the vision of our school. The faculty is
so well-knit together we can get things done. Every teacher is making a contribution in
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 79
some way or another or else we could not function. It is like a real family. Everything is
open and transparent.
We have a great team…we just get along and are very positive with each other.
The following data summary table shows teacher leader interview responses regarding
factors that support and inhibit the practice of teacher leadership. The teacher leader interview
protocol asked teachers to specifically state the factors that support and inhibit teacher leadership
practice.
Table 16
Teacher Leader Response to Factors that Support and Inhibit Teacher Leader Practice
Facilitating Factors Inhibiting Factors
 Support from colleagues
 Mutual respect
 Structured time to meet and collaborate
 Focused and productive conversations
 Open forums of communication
 Freedom to share ideas and opinions
 Transparency and sharing information
throughout the school
 Administrative support
 Clear vision and expectations
 Positive environment
 Freedom to make decisions about curriculum

 Lack of clarity about specific teacher leader duties
and responsibilities
 Lack of resources for professional development and
money to carry out ideas
 Lack of training and individual preparation for tasks
such as planning agendas, organizing materials, and
planning professional development Lack of
monetary incentives for the extra work
 Lack of time to conduct classroom observations
 Lack of motivation by peers
 Conflicting ideas between colleagues about most
effective ways to improve
 Ability to communicate with colleagues and get
them to give their input

Participant responses revealed that factors such as administrative support, mutual respect,
structured time, productive conversations, open communication, information sharing, positive
environment and freedom to make decisions contribute to teacher leader success. The factors
that inhibit teacher leader success included lack of clarity about teacher leader role, lack of
resources for professional development, lack of teacher leader training, lack of monetary
rewards, lack of time to observe colleagues, lack of peer motivation, lack of communication by
everyone, and conflicting ideas and opinions about how to improve.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 80
RQ1 Data Analysis Summary
The purpose of the survey and interviews was to determine the degree which cultural
dimensions that support teacher leadership are exhibited in schools that have distributed
leadership structures. Data revealed that all seven dimensions were exhibited to some degree at
each school.
A comparative analysis of schools revealed that School A scored highest in
developmental focus and recognition and lowest in open communication and participation.
School A is an elementary school where collaboration and sharing is the norm. Additionally,
giving kudos to students and staff is embedded within the culture. Elementary schools tend to be
very collaborative in nature so it is not surprising that autonomy was rated the lowest. School A
has focused most of its efforts on improving student achievement as measured by performance
on the California Standards Test (CST). The focus on test scores has resulted in the use of
common pacing guides, units and assessments that may cause teachers to feel a lack of autonomy
and creativity.
School B scored highest in autonomy and participation, but lowest in open
communication and collegiality. Autonomy and participation may be high priorities due to the
complexity of school needs and the limited number of individuals available to address issues as
they arise. School B is a middle school with a small staff (25 teachers) that requires teachers to
take on varied roles and wear many hats, hence higher perceptions of “participation”. The
principal at School B talked a lot about getting everyone involved, encouraging teachers to share
ideas, and giving teacher flexibility to be creative and innovative. Based on principal comments,
autonomy is encouraged and valued at School B. Lower scores on the remaining five
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 81
dimensions may be affected because most efforts are geared towards problem-solving and
maximizing creativity and innovation.
School C scored highest in developmental focus and positive environment. The lowest
measures for School C were in open communication and participation. School C is a high school
with a large staff and the highest student enrollment among the three schools. As a result the
frequency measures may be inflated due to the school providing more opportunities to observe
interactions aligned to each of the seven dimensions. The low score in participation may be
caused by the emphasis on less bureaucratic and hierarchical structures in favor of a more
collaborative and collegial environment (“the way our school is designed, collaboration is built
into our culture”).
Overall, the mean scores revealed that development focus and positive environment were
the most practiced dimensions and participation and open communication were the least
practiced dimensions. This is a key finding because it reveals that schools with distributed
leadership structures spend most of their time helping teachers gain new knowledge/skills,
promoting mutual respect and working collaboratively to support the interest of students.
According to Harris (2008), distributed leadership implies a form of collaborative individualism
where individuals work collaboratively to act upon and transform systems. This finding denotes
that distributed leadership influences school culture by helping to promote a collaborative and
cooperative environment.
Furthermore, teacher leader interviews confirmed that school cultural factors such as
administrative support, mutual respect structured time, productive conversations, open
communication, information sharing, positive environment and freedom to make decisions help
to facilitate teacher leader practice. Participants also reported that factors such as lack of clarity
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 82
about teacher leader role, lack of resources for professional development, lack of teacher leader
training, lack of monetary rewards, lack of time to observe colleagues, lack of peer motivation,
lack of communication by everyone, and conflicting ideas and opinions about how to improve
inhibit teacher leadership practice. Organizational structures reflect important values and beliefs
and exercise considerable influence on the performance and outcomes of teacher leadership, and
components must be carefully examined to exclude barriers that may impede or interfere with
teacher leadership practice (Murphy, 2007).
The majority of inhibiting factors reported by interview participants were not school-
specific in regards to the development and implementation of teacher leadership practice.
Participant responses focused primarily on job-specific elements that they feel are essential to
support teacher leaders as they carry out the functions of teacher leadership in their schools.
This is a key finding because it emphasizes the importance of codified standards to describe what
teacher leaders should know and be able to do along with assistance and coaching to support
teacher leaders as they execute the functions outlined in the standards. According to Frost and
Durrant (2005), successful teacher leadership requires genuine development and the reliance on
the collaborative relationships and social context wherein knowledge can be created, transferred
and transposed.
Research Question 2
The purpose of this question was to assess perceptions of teacher leader roles and
responsibilities in schools with distributed leadership structures. The questions sought to
identify the extent to which descriptors of teacher leader practice as identified in the teacher
leader standards were evident in schools that practice distributed leadership. Interview and focus
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 83
group responses were coded to the teacher leader standard domains. The seven domains are
listed below:
1. Fostering a collaborative culture to support educator development and student learning
2. Accessing and using research to improve practice and student learning
3. Promoting professional learning for continuous improvement
4. Facilitating improvement in instruction and student learning
5. Promoting the use of assessments and data for school and district improvement
6. Improving outreach and collaboration with families and communities
7. Advocating for student learning and the profession (Teacher Leadership Exploratory
Consortium, 2008, p. 9)
Interviews and focus group
Administrator interview and focus group transcripts were also coded and analyzed for
emergent themes (Table 17). A comparative analysis was conducted using data from
administrators, teacher leaders and the focus group to identify commonalities about the perceived
role of teacher leaders.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 84
Table 17
Perceptions of Teacher Leader Roles by Participant Group
Administrators Teacher Leaders Focus Group
1. Share information with
colleagues
2. Address school-wide
concerns
3. Conduct needs assessment
4. Give input on school
budgets and resource
allocation
5. Prepare meeting agendas
6. Administer assessments
7. Conduct classroom
observations
8. Discuss instructional
strategies
9. Share best practices
10. Plan lessons
11. Deliver professional
development
1. Facilitate meetings
2. Share information from
administration; serve as
liaison
3. Oversee curriculum maps
and pacing guides
4. Support professional
development and
implementation of common
core
5. Create assessments and
analyze data
6. Improve student
achievement and student
performance
7. Oversee budgets and order
supplies
8. Model lessons
9. Advocate for students and
teachers
1. Disseminate information to
others
2. Conduct professional
development
3. Conduct research and help
solve problems
4. Lesson and unit planning
5. Serve as a mediator between
administration and teachers
6. Prepare for district
assessments
7. Discuss curricular planning

Administrator responses revealed that teacher leaders engage in activities such as sharing
information, addressing school-wide issues and concerns, giving input on budgets, preparing
agendas for meetings, administering assessments, conducting classroom observations, discussing
instructional strategies, sharing best practices, planning lessons and delivering professional
development.
Teacher leader responses indicated that teacher leader responsibilities include facilitating
meetings, sharing information, serving as a liaison between administration and teachers,
overseeing development of curriculum maps and pacing guides, creating assessments, analyzing
data, improving student achievement, overseeing budgets, ordering supplies, modeling lessons
and advocating for students and teachers.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 85
Focus group responses specified that teacher leaders disseminate information, conduct
professional development, research and solve problems, plan lessons, serve as mediators between
administrators and teachers, prepare district assessments and discuss curricular plans.
Comparative analysis results show that administrators, teacher leaders and focus group
participants perceive teacher leaders responsibilities include sharing information,
budgeting/resource allocation, delivering professional development, administering assessments,
planning lessons, modeling and discussing instructional strategies and identifying problems and
finding solutions.
Part two of analysis for the interview and focus group responses consisted of aligning
words and phrases from initial coding and analysis to teacher leader standard domains (Table
18).
Table 18
Alignment between Participant Responses and Teacher Leader Standard Domain
School Participa
nt
Domain
1
Domain
2
Domain
3
Domain
4
Domain
5
Domain
6
Domain
7
Total
Domain
s
(%)
Elem
School
(A)
A1 X X X X X 5/7=71%
TL1 X X X X X 5/7=71%
TL2 X X X
3/7=43%
TL3 X X X 3/7=43%
Middle School
(B)
A2 X X X X 4/7=57%
TL4 X X X X 4/7=57%
TL5 X X X X X 5/7=71%
TL6 X X X 3/7=43%
High School (C)
A3 X X X X X 5/7=71%
TL7 X X X 3/7=43%
TL8 X X X X 4/7=57%
TL9 X X 2/7=29%
Elem/
High School
FG X X X X
4/7=57%
Total (%
Responses)
5/13
(38%)
9/13
(69%)
6/13
(69%)
10/13
(76%)
5/13
(38%)
4/13
(31%)
11/13
(85%)

*Participant Category: A (Administrator), TL (Teacher Leader), FG (Focus Group)
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 86
Data revealed that perceptions about teacher leader practice align to one or more TLS
domains. A total of 12 interviews were conducted, along with one focus group. Interview and
focus group transcripts were coded and reviewed to look for words and phrases aligned to
descriptors of practice in the teacher leader standards (Table 3). A set of 13 transcripts (3-
administrator; 9-teacher leader; 1-focus group) were analyzed to show the percentage of
responses by domain: Domain 1 (38%), Domain 2 (69%), Domain 3 (46%), Domain 4 (76%),
Domain 5 (38%), Domain 6 (31%), and Domain 7 (85%). The highest frequency of responses
fell into Domain 4 (facilitate improvement in teaching and learning) and 7 (advocate for student
learning and the teaching profession). The lowest frequency of responses fell into Domain 6
(improve family and community outreach).
At School A, average participant responses matched 57% of the teacher leader standard
domains. Administrator perceptions of teacher leader practice were aligned to 71% of the
domains and teacher leader perceptions aligned to 43% to 71% of standard domains. At School
A, descriptions of teacher leader practice were highest for Domain 2 and 4 (access and use
research; facilitate improvement in teaching and learning). Administrator perceptions’ fell into
all categories except Domain 5 and 6 (promote use of assessments/data; improve family and
community outreach).
At School B, average participant responses matched 57% of the teacher leader standard
domains. Administrator perceptions of teacher leader practice were aligned to 57% of the
standard domains while teacher leader perceptions of practice were aligned to 43% to 71% of
standard domains. At School B, descriptions of teacher leader practice were highest for Domain
4 and 7 (facilitate improvement in teaching and learning; advocate for student learning and
teaching profession). Administrator perceptions’ fell into all categories except Domain 1, 5, and
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 87
6 (foster a collaborative culture; promote the use of assessments/data; improve
family/community outreach).
At School C, average participant responses matched 50% of the teacher leader standard
domains. Administrator perceptions of teacher leader practice were aligned to 71% of the
domains and teacher leader perceptions of practice were aligned to 29% to 57% of standard
domains. At School C, descriptions of teacher leader practice were highest for Domain 7
(advocate for student learning and teaching profession). Administrator perceptions’ fell into all
categories except Domain 3 (promote professional learning). Teacher leader perceptions’ fell
into all categories except Domain 1 (foster a collaborative culture). Data from School C did not
reveal any responses aligned to Domain 6 (improve family/community outreach).
Focus group responses matched 57% of the teacher leader standard domains. Focus
group responses fell into all categories except Domain 4, 5 and 6 (facilitate improvement in
teaching and learning; promote use of assessments/data; and improve family/community
outreach).
Overall, the average response matched to teacher leader standard domains for the
elementary school (A), middle school (B), and high school (C) were 57%, 57% and 50%
respectively. Administrator perceptions of teacher leader practice fell within 57%-71% of
standard domains and teacher leader perceptions of teacher leader practice fell within 29%-71%
of standard domains. The highest number of responses aligned to Domain 7 (85%) and Domain
4 (76%). Domain 5 (38%) and Domain 1 (38%) had the least number of matched responses.
RQ2 Data Analysis Summary
The purpose of the interviews and focus group was to explore perceptions about the role
and functions of teacher leaders in schools with a distributed leadership model. Overall, data
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 88
across the three schools showed that participants perceive that the majority of teacher leader
functions fall in Domains 2, 4, and 7 of the teacher leader standards. Domain 2 focuses on
teacher leaders accessing and using research to improve practice and student learning. Domain 4
addresses teacher leader functions that involve facilitating improvements in instruction and
student learning. Domain 7 depicts teacher leader tasks that include advocacy for student
learning and the teaching profession.
Activities and functions aligned to Domains 2, 4 and 7 appear to be teacher-centered and
teacher-directed. Domains 2, 4 and 7 focus on teacher knowledge and understanding of practices
that have a direct influence on teaching and learning. For example, within Domain 2 teacher
leader functions include selecting strategies to improve student learning and analyzing student
learning data to make instructional improvements. In Domain 4, teacher leader practice
emphasizes behaviors such as addressing curricular expectations and engaging in reflective
dialogue to improve instruction and make connections to evidence-based practices. Domain 7
functions include sharing information to support effective teaching and advocating for resources
to improve student learning.
Data also reflected that participants across the three schools perceive teacher leaders are
less involved in functions described in teacher leader standard Domains 1, 3, 5, and 6 which are
directed towards fostering collaborative cultures, promoting professional learning for continuous
improvement, promoting the use of assessments and data for school and district improvement,
and improving outreach and collaboration with families and communities. Teacher leader
functions within Domain 1, 3, 5, and 6 emphasize activities such as promoting a collegial and
respectful environment, job-embedded professional learning, building capacity in others and
collaborating with families and community to improve student outcomes. These functions may
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 89
be perceived as external to the classroom environment and may not be priority areas of focus for
teacher leadership practice.
Data revealed that elementary school (A) perceptions of teacher leadership focus on
activities such as accessing/using research and facilitating improvements in teaching and
learning. Middle school (B) administrator and teacher leaders perceive teacher leadership
functions as primarily facilitating improvements in teaching and learning along with advocating
for student learning and the teaching profession. The high school participants (C) identified
teacher leadership practices as efforts concentrated on advocacy for student learning and the
teaching profession.
Across schools there were some commonalities in data reported. School A (elementary)
and School B (middle) both perceived teacher leadership practice should focus on facilitating
improvements in instruction and student learning. School B (middle) and School C (high)
perceptions of teacher leader practice highlighted functions such as advocating for student
learning and teaching.
The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008) define teacher leadership as a
process through which teachers influence others to improve teaching and learning aimed at
increasing student learning and achievement. All three schools state teacher leadership practice
requires actions focused on improving student learning (Domain 4 and 7). Teacher leadership is
about actions that energize and transform teaching and learning (Danielson, 2007; Davis & Leon,
2009).
A key finding is the disparity in knowledge and understanding of the functions of teacher
leadership. There were differences in perceptions of teacher leader practice between
administrators and teacher leaders. In addition, there were differences in perceptions of teacher
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 90
leader practice between school types and also between participants working at the same school.
According to the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008), the teacher leader
standards will guide the development of future teacher leaders and provide current teacher
leaders with a benchmark for assessing their leadership expertise. The teacher leader standards
also provide a framework to ensure consistency and continuity of teacher leader practice within
schools and across schools.
Summary
This chapter presented findings from the research study with the intent of providing
information on each phase of the sequential mixed-methods approach to explore factors that
influence teacher leadership practice in public schools. Triangulation from the quantitative and
qualitative phases of the study revealed findings to understand the dialectical relationship
between distributed leadership, school culture and teacher leadership practice in public schools.
Phase one consisted of administering the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS) to
80 participants across three schools. The TLSS was used to determine the dimensions of school
culture that support teacher leadership. Phase two consisted of conducting interviews with three
administrators and nine teacher leaders to identify factors that support or inhibit teacher
leadership and perceptions of teacher leader practice. The dimensions of school culture
measured by the TLSS were used to codify survey, interview and focus group data for RQ1.
Distributed leadership influences school culture by promoting collaborative and
cooperative environments. Data revealed that schools with distributed leadership structures
focus a majority of practices, rituals and traditions that support development focus and positive
environment. Based on results from the three schools, schools with distributed leadership
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 91
structures spend most of their time helping teachers gain new knowledge/skills, promoting
mutual respect and working collaboratively to support the interest of students.
Phase three of the study consisted of interviews with three administrators and nine
teacher leaders to identify perceptions of teacher leader roles and responsibilities. In addition, a
focus group was also convened to gather data about perceptions of teacher leader practice. The
Teacher Leader Standard (TLS) domains were used to codify interview and focus group data for
RQ2.
Overall, data across the three schools showed that participants perceive that teacher
leadership practice is focused primarily on activities such as accessing and using research,
facilitating improvement in student learning, and advocating for student learning and teaching.
Data also revealed that teacher leaders are perceived as being less involved in functions like
fostering collaborative cultures, promoting professional learning for continuous improvement,
promoting the use of assessments and data for school and district improvement, and improving
outreach and collaboration with families and communities. Based on results, there were
differences in perceptions of teacher leader practice between administrators and teacher leaders.
In addition, there were differences in perceptions of teacher leader practice between school types
and also between participants working at the same school. Further discussions of findings are
presented in Chapter Five.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 92
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Review of the Study
State and federal performance measures for public education necessitate a shift in
leadership from managing orderly environments to sharing leadership roles and responsibilities
to ensure student success (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008). Formal, hierarchical
models of school leadership are being replaced with shared and distributed models that espouse
collective and collaborative efforts to enhance teacher quality and student learning.
Researchers suggest that a distribution of leadership must occur if schools are to meet the
challenges of disproportionate levels of achievement, uneven teacher quality, high dropout rates,
and other manifestations of an economically stratified society that confront them on a consistent
basis from day to day (Harris, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009; Smylie & Markvos, 2009; Casky,
2010). The effectiveness of distributed leadership is influence by school culture, sustained
interdependence and interrelated actions of everyone in the organization.
The success of schools in the 21
st
century requires collaborative and participatory
organizational structures that promote problem solving and the creation of collective intelligence
(Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2008). The influence of culture upon improving
schools is important and is a key factor in determining whether improvement is possible
(Gruenert, 2000). Collaborative school cultures provide effective contexts for improving the
quality of teaching and learning.
In recent years, schools and districts have looked towards teacher leadership as a strategy
to promote improvements in teacher quality and student learning. According to Katzenmeyer
and Moller (2009) there is a sleeping giant of teacher leadership in every school that can be a
strong catalyst for making changes to improve student learning. However, in order for teacher
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 93
leadership to become a catalyst for change, schools must encourage and promote a set of
practices to sustain a healthy culture that is conducive to its growth and development.
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) identified seven dimensions of a healthy school culture that
fosters teacher leadership: 1) developmental focus, 2) recognition, 3) autonomy, 4) collegiality,
5) participation, 6) open communication and 7) positive environment.
In addition to a healthy school culture, the perception of teacher leader roles and
responsibilities also influence the practice of teacher leadership. During the first wave of teacher
leadership, teacher leaders focused on transactional and operational duties such as ordering
textbooks and managing supplies. Second wave teacher leaders were pulled from daily
classroom practice to serve as coaches, mentors and master teachers. Currently, the third wave is
concentrated on collaborative efforts focused on organizational change and improvement.
According to the teacher leader standards, teacher leaders engage in practices such as a)
fostering collaborative cultures, b) accessing and using research, c) promoting professional
learning, d) facilitating improvements in teaching and learning, e) using assessments and data, f)
improving outreach and collaboration, and g) advocating for student learning and the profession.
The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 was developed and used as a structure to
support and guide the research study. The researcher presupposed that certain factors and school
conditions must exist to support teacher leadership and improve the effectiveness of teacher
leaders as they execute the functions outlined in the teacher leader standards. As a result of this
presupposition and a review of the literature, this mixed-methods study was designed to examine
teacher leadership practices in schools modeling distributed leadership principles. The study
investigated factors that support or inhibit teacher leader success. The study also focused on
identifying perceptions of teacher leader practice.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 94
Research question one was assessed through quantitative and qualitative methodology.
The quantitative phase of the study consisted of administering the Teacher Leader School Survey
(TLSS) to 80 teachers across three school sites. The qualitative phase consisted of interviews
and a focus group. Research question two was explored using qualitative measures to assess
administrator and teacher leader perceptions of teacher leader roles and functions. A focus group
was convened and interviews were conducted with three school administrators and nine teacher
leaders. Multiple data collection methods were used to ensure data triangulation and validation.
Discussion of Findings
Reforms that strive for educational excellence are likely to fail unless they are
meaningfully linked to school culture (Deal and Peterson, 1999). Findings from this study show
that the seven dimensions of school culture are evident to some degree in schools with
distributed leadership structures. Each school type, elementary, middle and high school reported
that leadership dimension activities such as developmental focus, recognition, autonomy,
collegiality, participation, open communication and positive environment were practiced
“sometimes”, “often” or “always”.
Research has revealed that collaborative cultures lead to higher levels of trust and respect
among colleagues, improved professional satisfaction, improved instructional practices, better
outcomes for all students, and school change that is maintained over time (Waldron &
McLeskey, 2010). Results show that developmental focus and positive environment were the
most commonly practiced dimensions across the three schools. These findings suggest that
schools with distributed leadership structures spend a majority of time helping teachers gain new
knowledge/skills, promoting mutual respect, working collaboratively to support the interest of
students and providing an overall general satisfaction with the work environment. Successful
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 95
teacher leadership requires genuine development and the reliance on collaborative relationships
and social contexts wherein knowledge can be created, transferred and transposed (Frost &
Durrant, 2005).
Findings also indicate that schools with distributed leadership structures spend less time
supporting activities aligned to participation and open communication. This suggests that even
though schools have systems in place to support and distribute leadership tasks across various
members of the school community, teachers are not always actively involved in shared decision-
making and do not feel informed about what is going on in the school and throughout the
organization as a whole. And lastly, findings show that teacher leadership practice is inhibited
by factors such as a lack of clarity about teacher leader role and lack of teacher leader training.
Teacher leadership is about actions that transform teaching and learning and tie schools
and communities together to advance learning and social sustainability (Davis & Leon, 2009).
The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008) defines teacher leadership as a process
through which teachers influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of the school
community to improve teaching and learning aimed at increasing student learning and
achievement. Findings revealed that perceptions of teacher leadership in schools with distributed
leadership structures consist of activities aligned to teacher leader standards domains 2, 4 and 7.
These domain-specific activities include accessing and using research to improve practice and
student learning, facilitating improvements in instruction and student learning, and advocacy for
student learning and the teaching profession.
Bond (2011) reports that the current generation of teacher leaders are engaged in the
work of modeling new instructional practices, collaborating with colleagues to improve student
learning, and fostering a generally more positive and productive school culture. Findings
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 96
showed that in schools with distributed leadership structures, teacher leaders focus on developing
teacher knowledge and understanding of practices that have a direct influence on teaching and
learning. For example, teacher leaders select strategies to improve student learning and
analyzing student learning data to make instructional improvements. Teacher leaders address
curricular expectations and engage in reflective dialogue to improve instruction and make
connections to evidence-based practices. In addition, teacher leaders share information to
support effective teaching and advocating for resources to improve student learning. However,
findings revealed that teacher leaders are less likely to engage in activities that promote collegial
and collaborative school cultures.
According to the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008), the teacher leader
standards will guide the development of future teacher leaders and provide current teacher
leaders with a benchmark for assessing their leadership expertise. The teacher leader standards
also provide a framework to ensure consistency and continuity of teacher leader practice within
schools and across schools. One key finding was the disparity in knowledge and understanding
of the functions of teacher leadership. There were differences in perceptions of teacher leader
practice between administrators and teacher leaders. In addition, there were differences in
perceptions of teacher leader practice between school types and also between participants
working at the same school.
Spillane et al. (2003) state that school leadership is not simply a function of what an
individual leader knows or does, but, rather, it is constituted in the dynamic interaction of
multiple leaders, followers and the situations around specific leadership tasks. The results from
this study helped to underscore the mutual reliance and interdependence between school
leadership, school culture and teacher leadership practice.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 97
An analysis of data revealed the following similarities among schools participating in the
study:
1. Models and structures for distributed leadership are in place
a. Collaborative planning teams
b. Leadership teams
c. School site councils/School governance team
2. School culture is definitive in supporting teacher leadership
a. Barriers are removed and resources are found to support teacher efforts
b. Teachers collaborate on instructional and student-related matters
c. Teacher assist each other and help others learn
d. Teachers feel appreciated and there is general work satisfaction
e. There is mutual respect and effect work is encouraged and recognized
3. Opportunities for teacher leadership exist and are open to everyone
a. Grade level/Department Chair
b. Instructional coach
c. Lead teacher
4. Teacher leaders are perceived to carry out functions outlined in the teacher leader
standards
a. Teacher leaders model and facilitate systematic inquiry as a component of
teacher learning and development.
b. Teacher leaders demonstrate an understanding of content and pedagogical
knowledge and work collaboratively with peers to ensure that instructional
practices are aligned to a shared vision, mission and goals.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 98
c. Teacher leaders advocate for student needs and practices that support
effective teaching and increase student learning.
Areas for Future Research
Based on the results from this study, the following recommendations are offered for future
research:
1. Conduct a study to examine how teacher leaders execute the functions outlined in the
teacher leader standards.
2. Conduct a comparative study involving different school types (e.g., elementary,
middle and high) to measure the degree and frequency of TLSS dimensions and
identify what, if any, commonalities exist among school types.
3. Conduct a longitudinal study involving cohorts of teachers from university programs
to examine what, if any, correlation exist between programs of study and teacher
leadership capacity.
4. Conduct a comparative study of teacher leadership development programs to see how
closely the program objectives align to the teacher leader standards.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn and are fully
supportive of previously established research:
1. Schools with distributed leadership structures offer multiple opportunities such as
department chairperson, grade level chairperson, instructional coach, small learning
community lead teacher, and membership on school decision-making and governance
committees for teachers to participate in teacher leadership.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 99
2. Organizational structures exercise considerable influence on the performance and
outcome of teacher leadership (Murphy, 2007). Schools with distributed leadership
structures frequently engage in activities that promote teacher leadership such as
developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality, participation, open
communication and positive environments.
3. Teacher leadership is about actions that transform teaching and learning (Davis &
Leon, 2009). The perceived roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders in schools
with distributed leadership structures execute functions such as accessing and using
research to improve practice and student learning, facilitating improvements in
instruction and student learning, and advocacy for student learning and the teaching
profession.
4. There are differences in the perceptions of administrator and teacher leader about the
roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders. Administrator perceptions of teacher
leadership aligned to 71% of teacher leader standard domains. However, teacher
leader perceptions of teacher leadership aligned to 57% of teacher leader standard
domains in elementary and middle school compared to 50% of teacher leader
standard domains in high school. The introduction of teacher leader standards will
provide a framework to help codify what teacher leaders should know and be able to
do.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 100
References
Ackerman, R., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering Teacher Leadership. Educational
Leadership, 63(8), 66-70.
Angelle, P. S., & DeHart, C. A. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher leadership: Examining
differences by experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin, 95(2), 141-160.
Angelle, P. S. (2010). An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a
middle school. RMLE Online, 33(5), 1-16.
Angelle, P. S., & Schmid, J. B. (2007). School Structure and the Identity of Teacher Leaders:
Perspectives of Principals and Teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 771-799.
Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher
leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 15-22.
Atkins, M., Bonner, D., Frazier, S., Jakobsons, L. Marinez-Lora, A., and Shernoff, E. (2011).
Teachers supporting teachers in urban schools: What iterative research designs can teach
us. School Psychology Review, 40(4), 465.
Ballek, K., O'Rourke, A., & Provenzano, J. (2005). 7 Keys in cultivating principals and teacher
leaders. Journal of Staff Development, 26(2), 42-48.
Barth, R. (2001). Teacher leader. The Phi Delta Kappan , 82(6), 443-449.
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 8-13.
Bass, Bernard M; Jung, Dong I; Avolio, Bruce J; Berson, Yair. Journal of Applied Psychology
88.2 (Apr 2003): 207-218.
Beachum, F., and Dentith, A. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and
transformation. The Educational Forum, 68(3), 276-286.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 101
Bolman LG and Deal TE (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bond, N. (2011). Teachers as leaders. The Educational Forum, 75(4), 280 – 297.
Bowman, R. (2004). Teachers as leaders. The Clearing House, 77(5), 187-189.
Bouchamma, Y. (2012). Leadership practices in effective schools in disadvantaged areas of
canada. Education Research International, doi:http//dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/712149.
Buchen, I. (2000). The myth of school leadership. Education Week, 19(38), 1–3.
Buckner, K., & McDowelle, J. (2000). Developing teacher leaders: Providing encouragement,
opportunities, and support. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 35–41.
Bycio, P, Hackett, R. D., Allen, J. S. (1995). Conceptualization of transactional and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology80(4), 468.
California State Superintendent of Public Instruction (2012). A report by State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s Task Force on Educator Excellence. Retrieved April
6, 2013, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/greatnessfinal.pdf
California State Department of Education (2009). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Glossary.aspx .
Caskey, M. (2010). An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a
middle school. Research in Middle Level Education, 33(5), 1-16.
Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (2009). Teacher leaders skills framework.
Retrieved from
http://www.cstpwa.org/sites/default/files/self%20assessments_all_web.pdf
Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 102
Clarkin-Phillips, J. (2009). Distributed leadership utilising everyone's strengths. Early Childhood
Folio, 13, 22.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Teacher leader model standards. Retrieved from
http://www.ctl.vcu.edu/images/15138_TeacherModelStandards.pdf .
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2007). The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 14-19.
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria,
VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Davis, S. H., & Leon, R. J. (2009). Teaching gil to lead. Journal of School Leadership, 19(3),
266-298.
Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (1999). The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture. The
Jossey-Bass education series.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dozier, T. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 54-
58.
Feeney, E. J. (2009). Taking a look at a school's leadership capacity: The role and function of
high school department chairs. The Clearing House, 82(5), 212-218.
Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Firestone, W. and Martinez, C. (2007). Districts, Teacher Leaders, and Distributed Leadership:
Changing Instructional Practice, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 103
Frost, D. and Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale, strategy and impact. School
Leadership & Management, 23(2), 173-186.
Gates, G., & Robinson, S. (2009). Delving into teacher collaboration: Untangling problems and
solutions for leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 93(3), 145-165.
Gideon, B. (2002). Supporting a collaborative culture. Principal Leadership, 3(1), 41.
Goodwin, Vicki L; Wofford, J C; J Lee Whittington. (2001). A theoretical and empirical
extension of the transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational
Behavior22(7), 759-774.
Gomez, M., Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (2012) Examining culture and performance at different
middle school level structures. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(2),
205 – 222.
Gruenert, S. (2000). Shaping a new school culture. Contemporary Education, 71(2), 14-17.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does distributed leadership make a
difference? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38: 654-678.
Harris, A. (2012). Distributed leadership: implications for the role of the principal. Journal of
Management Development, 31(1), 7 – 17.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed school leadership: Evidence, issues and future directions.
Australian Council for Educational Leaders, 44, 1-13.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(2), 172-188.
Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255-265.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 104
Harris, A. (2005). Teacher leadership: More than just a feel-good factor. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(3), 201-219.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility?
School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-324.
Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1),
74-77.
Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation &
research. Belmont, CA: Thompson.
Holmes, K., Clement, J. & Albright, J. (2013). The complex task of leading educational change
in schools, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 33(3),
270-283.
Hopkins, D. and Jackson, D. (2003). Building the Capacity for Leading and Learning. In A.
Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves, and C. Chapman, Effective
Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 84-104). London: Routledge.
Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) (2001). Leadership for Student Learning: Redefining
the Teacher as Leader. School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative. A Report of
the Task Force on Teacher Leadership. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from
http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/teachlearn.pdf.
Katzenmeye, M. and Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop
as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin.
Killion, J. (2011).Model standards advance the profession. (2011). Journal of Staff Development,
32(3), 16-24.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 105
Lambert, L. (2005). What does leadership capacity really mean? Journal of Staff Development,
26(2), 38-40.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School
Leadership & Management, 23(4), 421-430.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Larsen, C and & Rieckhoff, B. (2014) Distributed leadership: principals describe shared roles in
a PDS. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 17(3),
304-326
Lattimer, H. (2007). To help and not hinder. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 70-73.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in every-day life. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of
leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35, 679-706.
Lezotte, L. & McKee, K. (2006). Stepping up: Leading the charge to improve our schools.
Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd., 196.
Lieberman, A. (2011). Can teachers really be leaders? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 16-18.
Lieberman, A. and Friedrich, L. (2009). Teacher leadership: Developing the conditions for
learning, support, and sustainability. Second International Handbook of Educational
Change, 23, 647-667.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R. and Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher Leadership: Ideology and Practice.
In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (339-345).
Chicago: Jossey-Bass.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 106
Lieberman, A. (1988). Expanding the leadership team. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 4-8.
Leithwood , K. , A. Harris , and D. Hopkins . 2008 . Seven Strong Claims about Successful
School Leadership . School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27 – 42
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Review of research. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4),
298-307.
Lohman, M. (2003). Work situations triggering participation in informal learning in the
workplace: A case study of public school teachers. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
16(1), 40-54.
Martin, B. (2007). Teacher leaders: Qualities and roles. The Journal for Quality and
Participation, 30(4), 17-18.
Martin, K., & Coleman, P. (2011). Licensing teacher leaders: The Kansas model. Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 77(3), 6-9.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Wiley & Sons.
Miles-Weiner, J. (2011). Finding common ground: Teacher leaders and principals speak out
about teacher leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(1), 7-41.
Moolenaar, N. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory,
methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7-39.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 107
Moos, L. and Huber, S. (2007). School leadership, school effectiveness and school improvement:
Democratic and integrative leadership. International Handbook of School Effectiveness
and Improvement, 17, 579-596.
Mujis, D. and Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 111-134.
Muijs, D. & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961-972.
Muijs, D. & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Principles and practice. National College
for School Leadership (NCSL). Retrieved May 28, 2013, from
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5132/1/download%3Fid%3D17417%26filename%3Dteacher-
leadership-principles-practice-full-report.pdf.
Mulford , B. (2006). Leading Change for Student Achievement . Journal of Educational Change,
7(1), 47 – 58.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M. Mayrowetx, D., & Louis, K. (2009). The role of the principal in
fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership & Management:
Formerly School Organisation, 29(2), 181-214.
Murphy, J. (2007). Teacher leadership: Barriers and supports. International Handbook of School
Effectiveness and Improvement, 681-706.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D. & Louis, K (2009). The role of the principal in fostering
the development of distributed leadership, School Leadership & Management: Formerly
School Organisation, 29:2, 181-214.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 108
Olsen, e. & Chrispeels, j. (2009) A pathway forward to school change: Leading together and
achieving goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 380-410
Olson, L. (2007). Leadership by teachers gains notice. Education Week, 26(36), 1-15.
Patterson, J., & Patterson, J. (2004). Sharing the Lead. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 74-78.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pepper, K. (2010). Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student
success: A focus for the reauthorization of ESEA. Planning and Changing, 41(1), 42-56.
Phelps, P. H. (2008). Helping teachers become leaders. The Clearing House, 81(3), 119-122.
Quinn, C., Haggard, C., and Ford, B. (2006). Preparing new teachers for leadership roles: A
model in four phases. School Leadership & Management, 26(1), 55-69.
Richardson, L. (1999). Helping teachers participate competently in school leadership. The
Clearing House, 76(4), 202-205.
Robinson , V. M. J. (2010). From Instructional Leadership to Leadership Capabilities: Empirical
Findings and Methodological Challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools 9(1), 1 – 26.
Robinson, V. & Timperley, H. (2007). The leadership of the improvement of teaching and
learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian
Journal of Education, 51(3), 247-262.
Ross, D., Adams, A., Bondy, E., Dana, N., Dodman, S., & Swain, C. (2011). Preparing teacher
leaders: Perceptions of the impact of a cohort-based, job embedded, blended teacher
leadership program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1213-1222.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 109
Rutherford, C. (2006). Teacher leadership and organizational structure. Journal of Educational
Change, 7(1-2), 59-76.
Syed, S. (2014). Leading schools through major change. The Education Digest, 79(7), 47-51.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1506936689?accountid=14749
Scribner, J., Sawyer, R., Watson, S. & Myers, V. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed
leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 43(67).
Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership: a collection of articles. (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sheppard, B., Brown, J., and Dibbon, D. (2009). Leadership and organizational learning. Studies
in Educational Leadership, 8, 15-32.
Sherrill, J. (1999). Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century. Theory into
Practice, 38(1), 56-61.
Sillins, H. & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system, teacher
and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 425 – 446.
Silva, D.Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779-804.
Singh, K. (2011). Teacher leadership: Making your voice count. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(1),
6.
Spillane, J. Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school
principal’s work day. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1): 103–125.
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(Winter), 143-150.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 110
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1): 3-34.
Spillane, J., Diamond, J. and Loyiso, J. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of
leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533-543.
Smylie, M. and Mayrowetz, D. (2009). Footnotes to teacher leadership. International Handbook
of Research on Teachers and Teaching, 21, 277-289.
Smylie, M. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal,
96(1), 3-7.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2008). Teacher Leader Model Standards.
Retrieved May 12, 2013, from
http://teacherleaderstandards.org/downloads/TLS_Brochure.pdf
Thornton, H. J. (2010). Excellent teachers leading the way: How to cultivate teacher leadership.
Middle School Journal, 41(4), 36-43.
United States. Congress.Senate.Committee on Health, Education, Labor,and Pensions. (2002).
Implementation of the no child left behind act: Hearing before the committee on health,
education, labor, and pensions, united states senate, one hundred seventh congress,
second session, on examining the implementation of the elementary and secondary
education act, focusing on accountability for results, parent and student choice, flexibility
for states, school districts, and schools, and progress to date, april 23, 2002. ( No. 107-
423; 107-423.). Washington: U.S. G.P.O. :For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
[Congressional Sales Office].
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 111
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wade, C. and Ferriter, B. (2007). Will you help me lead? Educational Leadership, 65(1), 65-68.
Waldron, N. & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through
comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
20(1), 58-74.
Wahlstrom, K. and York-Barr, J. (2011). Leadership: Support and structures make the difference
for educators and students. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 22-25.
Weaver-Hart, A. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 9-28.
Webb, P.T., Neumann, M., and Jones, L.C. (2004). Politics, school improvement, and social
justice: A triadic model of teacher leadership. The Educational Forum, 68(3), 254-262.
Weiss, C. (1995). The four “I’s” of school reform: How interest, ideology, information, and
institution affects teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592.
Williams , H. W. 2008 . Characteristics that Distinguish Outstanding Urban Principals:
Emotional Intelligence, Social Intelligence and Environmental Adaptation . Journal of
Management Development, 27(1), 36 – 54.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 112
Appendix A
Teacher Leadership School Survey

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 113

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 114

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 115
Appendix B
School Administrator Inteview Protocol

1. What structures do you currently have in place to support shared leadership?
2. As a school leader, what do you do to promote and encourage a spirit of collaboration?
3. Do you have a leadership council?
a. What is the composition of your leadership council?
4. What role does the leadership council play in making school-wide decisions?
a. What type of decisions does the leadership council make or have purview over?
b. What type of decision-making process do you currently have in place?
5. How are decisions made (e.g., majority vote, consensus, other)?
6. What opportunities do you provide to engage teachers in leadership beyond the classroom?
7. What criteria do you use to assess staff readiness for leadership roles and responsibilities?
8. What strategies do you use to build leadership capacity?
9. What type of coaching and mentoring do you provide teacher leaders?
10. How do you recognize teacher leaders for their work?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 116
Appendix C
Teacher Leader Interview Protocol

1. How many years have you been teaching?
2. How many years have you been assigned to your current location?
3. What is your highest level of education?
4. Specifically, what type of teacher leader roles have you held within the past three years?
a. What type of teacher leader positions have you held in the last three years?
5. As a ________________ what are/were you responsible for?
a. What are your areas of responsibility?
b. What do you do?

6. Why did you decide to take on a teacher leadership role?
a. What is the reason why you chose to become a teacher leader?
b. What was the intrinsic motivation to become a teacher leader?
c. What was the extrinsic motivation to become a teacher leader?

7. What motivate you to extend yourself beyond the classroom?
a. Why become a teacher leader?
8. What, if any, incentives do teachers receive to take on additional responsibilities outside of
the classroom?
9. In what ways does the school organizational structure help to facilitate teacher leadership?
a. What structures are in place to support teacher leaders?
b. How are teacher leaders supported at your school?

10. What, if any factors inhibit teacher leadership at your school?
a. Are there any factors that hinder teacher leaders at your school from being more
effective?
b. What additional resources do you as a teacher leader need to be more effective in
your teacher leader role?
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 117
Appendix D
Focus Group Protocol

1. How many years have you been teaching?

2. How long have you worked as a teacher leader?

3. What is your exact teacher leader title and what are you responsible for?

a. What are your duties and responsibilities?

b. Please describe what you do

4. Why did you decide to become a teacher leader?

a. What was your motivation for becoming a teacher leader?

5. As teacher leaders, what, if any impact do you have on teaching?

a. What, if any impact do you have on student learning?

6. What role, if any, do you play in making instructional decisions?

7. How do you as teacher leaders facilitate professional learning among your colleagues?

a. How involved are you in planning, organizing and facilitating professional
development?

8. What type of recognition do teachers and teacher leaders receive for their efforts?

a. What type of rewards and incentives do teacher leaders receive for their work?

9. What type of support do teacher leaders receive from administration?

a. How are you supported in your teacher leader role?

10. What type of challenges, if any do teacher leaders encounter?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 118
Appendix E
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Teacher Leadership

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. Your participation in any or all phases, is
voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to better understand how teacher leadership is facilitate or inhibited
by school culture. Another important component of the study is to identify how teacher
leadership is situated and practiced in school implementing various models of distributed
leadership.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The research study will consist of three phases of data collection using a survey, focus groups
and interviews. A 15-minute survey will be conducted using an online tool to gather teacher
leader demographic information and assess teacher leader perceptions of school culture. The
focus groups will involve 1-1 ½ sessions to gather information about educational philosophies
and beliefs. The final stage of the study consists of 1-hour interviews with teacher leaders to
learn how knowledge and skills are used in professional practice.

Focus groups and interviews will be audiotaped to assist with transcription and analysis. You
will be given copies of survey results, along with your focus group and interview transcripts to
ensure accuracy of information. Opportunities will be granted for participants to make
corrections and provide additional information as needed.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 119
The data will be stored on a password protected computer and/or in a locked storage unit in the
researcher’s office for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. Audio
tapes will be destroyed upon completion of the transcript.

Due to the nature of the focus group, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. You are asked not to
discuss the participants or content of the focus group with anyone outside of the focus group, In
order to try to maintain as much confidentiality as possible.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Janet Mack via email at janetmac@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 120
Appendix F
Sign-in Roster
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 121

Appendix G
Letter to School/Faculty

Dear ____________________:

My name is Janet Mack and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California.

I am conducting a research study on factors that influence teacher leadership practice in
public schools. The purpose of the study is to better understand how teacher leadership is
facilitate or inhibited by organizational structure, school culture and teacher motivation.
Another important component of the study is to identify how teacher leadership is situated
and supported in school implementing various models of distributed leadership.

A teacher leader is defined as an individual who positively impacts student learning by
influencing adults, formally and informally beyond individual classroom. The study will focus
on formal teacher leaders. Formal teacher leaders are defined as individuals appointed or
selected to serve in a leadership role.

The research study will consist of three phases of data collection using a survey, focus groups
and interviews. A 15-minute survey will be conducted using a paper/pencil tool to assess
perceptions of school culture. The semi-structured interviews will consist of 45-minute to 1-hour
interviews with school administrators and teacher leaders. The final stage of the study consists
of a 1-1 ½ hour focus group session.

Focus groups and interviews will be audiotaped to assist with transcription and analysis.
Participants will be given copies of focus group and interview transcripts to ensure accuracy of
information. Opportunities will be granted for participants to make corrections and provide
additional information as needed. All participants will maintain anonymity throughout each
phase of the study.

Educational research contributes towards enhancements and improvements in professional
practice. Participation in this study will provide greater insight and understanding about the
practice of teacher leadership and what can be done to foster and promote the success of teacher
leaders.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Janet Mack
TEACHER LEADERSHIP 122

Appendix H
Survey Letter to Faculty/Staff

Dear Teacher Leader:

I would like to invite you to participate in a short 15-minute survey related to school
culture. Surveys are being conducted with faculty/staff at three public schools in Southern
California, U.S.A.

All names and information will be kept confidential. It is important that we gather
information from practitioners in the field to better understand how school culture and
context shape the practice of teacher leadership.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Janet Mack

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 123
Appendix I
Interview Letter to School Administrators

Dear School Administrator:

Thank you for participating in the survey component of the research study. Your name
was selected for participation in a 1-hour interview designed to gather information about the
role of teacher leaders and factors that support or inhibit teacher leadership practices in your
school.

A total of three interviews will be conducted with administrators from each school site
involved in the study. Interviews will be conducted from (DATE) to (DATE). In the next
couple of days, you will receive an email and telephone call asking you to confirm your
willingness to participate and schedule a date/time to be interviewed.

Interviews will be audiotaped, but all names and information will be kept confidential.
Participants will receive a copy of the transcript and will be given an opportunity to review,
edit and provide additional information as needed.

It is important that we gather information from practitioners in the field to better
understand how context shapes teacher leadership and how teacher leadership functions
are executed and practiced in public schools.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Janet Mack

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 124
Appendix J
Interview Letter to Teacher Leaders

Dear Teacher Leader:

Thank you for participating in the survey component of the research study. Your name
was selected for participation in a 1-hour interview designed to gather information about
how you use specific knowledge and skills to execute the functions of teacher leadership and
what motivated you to become a teacher leader.

A total of nine interviews will be conducted with three teacher leaders from each school
site. Interviews will be conducted from (DATE) to (DATE). In the next couple of days, you
will receive an email and telephone call asking you to confirm your willingness to
participate and schedule a date/time to be interviewed.

Interviews will be audiotaped, but all names and information will be kept confidential.
Participants will receive a copy of the transcript and will be given an opportunity to review,
edit and provide additional information as needed.

It is important that we gather information from practitioners in the field to better
understand how context shapes teacher leadership and how teacher leadership functions
are executed and practiced in public schools.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Janet Mack

TEACHER LEADERSHIP 125
Appendix K
Focus Group Letter to Teacher Leaders

Dear Teacher Leader:

Thank you for participating in the survey component of the research study on teacher
leadership. Your name was selected for participation in a focus group designed to gather
information about the role of teacher leaders, factors that support teacher leadership and motivate
teachers to become teacher leaders

The focus group session will take place on (DATE) from (TIME) at (LOCATION). The focus
group sessions will consist of teacher leaders from three public schools involved in the
study.

In the next couple of days, you will receive an email and telephone call asking you to
confirm your willingness to participate. Focus group sessions will be audiotaped, but all
names and information will be kept confidential. Participants will receive a copy of the
transcript and will be given an opportunity to review, edit and provide additional
information as needed. It is important that we gather information from practitioners in the
field to better understand how school structures, culture and motivation shape teacher
leadership activities in public school settings.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Janet Mack

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Distributed leadership alone is not sufficient to bring about the significant changes that are required to improve the quality of teaching and learning in K-12 public schools. Schools that distribute leadership across all levels of the organization must also work to establish collaborative cultures that promote shared beliefs, norms, values, traditions and habits to ensure student achievement and academic success. The purpose of the study was to examine teacher leadership practices in schools with distributed leadership structures and investigate perceptions of teacher leader roles to identify factors that support or inhibit teacher leader success. A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate teacher leadership practice in three schools currently implementing distributed leadership structures. Surveys were distributed to assess school culture and climate. In addition, interviews were conducted with school administrators and teacher leaders to understand perceptions about teacher leadership practice and strategies that support teacher leader success.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Positive classroom leadership: how teachers manage meaningfully in high needs contexts

PDF

Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability

PDF

Women and leadership: the impact of collegiate athletics on leader identity development and attainment of leadership positions

PDF

The role of secondary mathematics teachers in fostering the Algebra 1 success of African American males

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

The impact of conflict and resilience on leadership: a mixed methods study of female elementary principals leading change

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher's use of socio-constructivist practices to facilitate mathematics learning

PDF

Conflict and resilience in women leaders of educational change

PDF

Leadership and identity: perceptions, experiences and negotiations of women leaders in higher education

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Teacher's use of socio-constructivist practices to facilitate mathematics learning

PDF

Their voices: middle school girls of color and their perceptions of themselves as leaders

PDF

The dynamics of instructional leadership & organizational structure in high performing urban schools

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

Asset Metadata

Creator Mack, Janet P. (author)

Core Title An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/16/2014

Defense Date 09/11/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag distributed leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school culture,teacher leader standards,teacher leadership

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pensavalle, Margo (committee chair), Hasan, Angela Laila (committee member), Humphrey, Amina (committee member), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member)

Creator Email janetmac@usc.edu,mpjconsultants19@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-478666

Unique identifier UC11287042

Identifier etd-MackJanetP-2947.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-478666 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MackJanetP-2947.pdf

Dmrecord 478666

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mack, Janet P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA