Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study
(USC Thesis Other)
Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS: EFFECT ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHER LEADERSHIP
A CASE STUDY
by
Ingrid J. Jaimes
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Ingrid J. Jaimes
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my two wonderful sons, Rafa and Manny Serfaty
Jaimes, never-ending sources of love, patience, support, and understanding, who
cheered and supported me along the way and who inspire me daily.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank several individuals whose support was instrumental in
helping me accomplish this goal:
• Dr. Adrianna Kezar, dissertation committee chair, who guided me with
unwavering support, energy, enthusiasm, patience, and high expectations for
research quality
• Dr. Carol Wilson, committee member, who embodies the concept of an
inspirational leader and who supported this culminating endeavor from afar
• Dr. Kathy Stowe, dissertation committee member, for her wisdom and
professional advice, and for always modeling qualitative leadership
• All the staff members at the two sites selected for this case study, who
volunteered their time to help me gather data and through it, gain a deeper
understanding of school leadership models
• Pamelita Watts, for being one of the best friends in the planet for so many
years, a constant source of inspiration and a terrific leader, a firm believer in
every project I undertake, and for always being there to help me cross the
“finish line”
• My PCY colleagues and friends, who cheered for me with pride throughout
the three years of the program, especially Marion Darling, Jodi Newman,
Linda Hada, Debbie Pierce, Mickey Block, Javier Rocha, Marcia Wisch, Rob
Hajek, and Linda Dunlop
iv
• Donna Robinson, my principal, for her support, interest, patience, flexibility
and understanding of the demands involved in the pursuit of a doctoral
program
• My thematic group partners, Drs. Michelle Yeung, Chris Zacharda , Keith
Fulthrop, Kelly Nelson, and Audrey Reilly, for providing ongoing and
insightful research discussions, support, and professional guidance
• Dr. Liz Blanco and Dr. Giuliana Klijian, for going through the whole doctoral
experience with me and with it, making it that much more meaningful and
fun
• My Glendale Knights family and friends, for “checking up” on me and
supporting this quest; Dave De Pinto, Beatrice Harendza, Tami and Artie
Psaltis, Jon and Patti Currie, Kim and Warren Williams, and Bonnie Verso: I
did it!
• Carol Wood and her family, for their love and support throughout this
journey
• To all of my students, and school-age children, as they inspire my
professional life
• Last, but most importantly, my family, both here and abroad, for always
being there, supporting me, and taking pride and interest in everything I do,
no matter how difficult; my mom and dad, who set the educational bar high
for us and who taught us the importance of work ethics, fairness, respect,
honesty, and professionalism; my grandparents, for instilling in me a strong
v
sense of diplomacy and a need for collaborative work; my siblings, for their
support; and my sons, who are the best human beings and who inspire
everything I do
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17
Introduction 17
Early Models of School Leadership 19
Traditional Leadership 20
Instructional Leadership 22
Models of Shared School Leadership 25
Team Leadership 27
Distributed Leadership 30
Components of Distributed Leadership 31
Types of Leadership Distribution 37
Distinctive Dimensions of Distributed Leadership Theory 39
Teacher Leadership Roles 44
Conclusion 49
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 52
Introduction 52
Methodology 52
Research Sites 57
Sample and Participants 60
Data Collection Procedures 64
Data Analysis Procedures 68
Trustworthiness 69
Ethical Considerations and Limitations of the Study 72
vii
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS 74
Introduction 74
Description of School Cultures 74
Distributed Leadership Elementary 74
Traditional Leadership Elementary 78
Study Findings 81
Teacher Leadership 82
Distributed Leadership Elementary 83
Traditional Elementary 90
Instruction 97
Distributed Leadership Elementary 97
Traditional Elementary 103
Curriculum 109
Distributed Leadership Elementary 109
Traditional Elementary 113
Management 118
Distributed Leadership Elementary 118
Traditional Elementary 122
Summary 125
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 127
Major Findings 127
Discussion and Practical Implications 128
Recommendations for Future Research 138
Conclusions 140
REFERENCES 143
APPENDIX A: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 151
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 152
APPENDIX C: PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES SURVEY 154
APPENDIX D: TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY RESULTS 157
APPENDIX E: DATA ANALYSIS TABLES 162
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison of Shared Leadership Models 43
Table 2: Comparison of Findings by Site 81
Table 3: Perceptions of Teachers’ Roles in Curriculum and Management 85
Table 4: Perceptions of Teachers’ Roles in Curriculum and Management 93
Table 5: Perceptions of Teachers Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and
Management Decision-Making 95
Table 6: Teachers’ Perceptions on Accountability Standards Associated with
State-Mandated Testing 99
Table 7: Teachers’ Perceptions on Accountability Standards Associated with
State-Mandated Testing 106
Table 8: Teachers’ Satisfaction with Their Involvement in Instruction and
Management 157
Table 9: Perceptions of Teacher Knowledge in Curriculum And Management 157
Table 10: Perceptions of Teacher Leadership in the Development of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Management 158
Table 11: Perception of Student Achievement and Teachers’ Involvement in
the Curriculum, Instruction, and Management Process 158
Table 12: Perception of Teacher Time to Work on Curriculum, Instruction,
and Management 159
Table 13: Pressure on Teachers to Meet Accountability Standards Associated
with State-Mandated Testing 159
Table 14: Perceptions of Teacher Involvement in Decision-Making Related to
Curriculum, Instruction, and Management 160
Table 15: Perceptions of Teachers’ Interest in Leadership Roles 160
Table 16: Perceptions of Teachers’ Site Leadership Opportunities 161
ix
ABSTRACT
This is a qualitative case study of two suburban elementary schools that have
experienced consistent student achievement over the past few years, as evidenced by
scores on standardized state tests. The study explores the effects on teacher
leadership development when using a distributive leadership model in the school. A
distributive leadership paradigm represents a novel and promising perspective in the
area of school leadership. The study examined the roles of teachers, their functions,
and their interactions and provided information on how leadership develops. To
potentially maximize the depth, accuracy, and interpretation of the data collected,
two sites with different leadership styles were chosen; one distributes leadership,
while the other site implements a traditional model. The following research question
guided the study: Do distributed leadership practices in school systems result in
increased teacher motivation, ability, and action towards leadership? The study
findings indicate that by having access to the school’s leadership structures and
routines through the distribution of leadership, teachers are able to share their
expertise and deepen their knowledge, which transfers into their classrooms through
improved creativity, motivation, and effectiveness as reflected in their instructional
programs. This study also offered new insight into how this distribution creates
teachers’ professional satisfaction, empowerment, ownership, and enhanced
responsibility in the decision making process dealing with the management of
instruction and curriculum. Future research should be conducted that includes the use
of long-term studies to explore the development of teacher leadership throughout the
x
various implementation stages of a distributed leadership model. Equally important
is to research how to distributive leadership of curriculum to incorporate teachers’
views.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
School reforms in the last decades have brought about increased public
demands for more efficient schools and leaders (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). In the last of these mandates, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001(NCLB), federal legislation delineates achievement targets
applicable to all students attending public schools, timelines for school attainment
and improvement, and sanction measures for underperforming institutions (Olson,
2001). Moreover, the NCLB reform document includes four principles focused on
testing, assisting struggling schools, providing school choice, and flexibility. This
last standard gives leaders at the state and local levels increased leverage to create
and exercise more control on their educational decisions. Consequently, authority
has been transferred to local districts and schools and with it, greater accountability
(Cross, 2004). As a result, local leadership functions and roles, as well as student
outcomes, have been put under the microscope.
Pressure on schools and their leadership, however, is not new and has been
part of the country’s political agenda, in the form of educational reform efforts, for at
least half a century. But what major findings have marked the negative perception of
the public education system? The national publications of A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform, in 1983, and the Third International
2
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), in 1996, provided the public with
documentation signaling an erosion of the instructional process in the United States.
These events indicated the need for school reform and a change in the leadership
roles exerted by school administrators.
In the A Nation at Risk report, the findings section, divided into content, time,
expectations, and teaching areas inherent in the educational process, asserted that, “
… declines in educational performance are in large part the result of disturbing
inadequacies in the way the educational process itself is often conducted” (A Nation
at Risk, 1983a, p. 17). The 48-page report advised public schools to, “ … adopt more
rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic
performance and student conduct,” and directed the general public to, “hold
educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to
achieve these reforms” (A Nation at Risk, 1983b, p. 21). The effects of this report
were detrimental and lasted for more than a decade; it has been referred to by some
scholars (Bennett, 1992; Finn, 1991, in Marzano, 2003) as the main basis used as
evidence of the deterioration of the public school system (Marzano, 2003). The
findings in A Nation at Risk explicitly advocated the need for instructional reform,
greater accountability, an education based on academic standards, effective school
leadership, and increased student expectations aligned with educational growth. As a
result, a need for a change in the way schooling in America had been conceptualized
and conducted for over a century became imminent and started aggressively pushing
its way through.
3
Adding to this, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) was published in 1996, suggesting the need for public education reform.
The report incorporated research findings in the areas of math and science, resulting
from a large-scale comparative study of educational practices in 41 nations. TIMMS
indicated that, compared to other developed countries in Asia and Europe, the United
States was doing a poor job in educating students. This assertion applied to
instructional practices, curricula, and school factors (Marzano, 2003). As with A
Nation at Risk, the TIMMS results exposed the need for education reform. The
direction of the change, as pointed through the findings in these documents, was
towards greater expectations, effective instructional practices, more demanding and
comprehensive curricula, content standards aligned with assessment measures,
increased accountability, and change in the traditional role of school leaders.
Standards-based reform and increased school accountability are directly linked to
school leadership. These aspects are embedded and emphasized in the legislation that
followed TIMMS, the No Child Left Behind Act, mentioned earlier.
Since the publications of A Nation at Risk and TIMMS, and more recently,
the advent of the NCLB federal legislation throughout the nation, the role of
principals has metamorphosed as a result of the ongoing changes it has faced. Before
understanding the development of the leadership function at a local school level,
however, it is necessary to briefly describe standards-based education and
accountability, as educational reform components that have preceded and shaped
leadership.
4
Standards-based reform is defined as education characterized by common
content and performance standards that describes what a student should know and be
able to do, for every school discipline at each grade level (Lauer, Snow, Martin-
Glen, Van Buhler, Stoutemyer & Snow-Renner, 2005). It also includes assessments
connected to these standards. A Nation at Risk has been referred to as the event
leading to the creation of content standards at a national level (Kendall & Marzano,
2000), through its call for greater and more demanding expectations for all students.
In 2002, after NCLB was signed into law, states were mandated to define their
content, performance, and assessment standards. Consequently, there was a
development of a “state-by-state framework for teaching and learning, consisting of
standards … and assessments tied to these standards and used statewide to determine
each student’s proficiency level” (Weiss, 2007, p. 3). In California students are
tested in the spring, and their progress towards the attainment of the State standards
is measured through the California Standards Test (CST). According to results in the
CSTs, students’ mastery of the content standards is assigned one of five possible
performance levels: a) advanced level (A), substantiates exceeding content
standards; b) proficient level (P), evidences meeting content standards; c) basic level
(B), approaching content standards; d) below basic level (BB), evidences
performance below content standards; and e) far below basic level (FBB), represents
performance significantly below content standards. The California Standards Test
results are used not only to assess student achievement, but schools’ performance as
well. These data are used by the State to assign each public school in California a
5
score, called the Academic Performance Index (API); it ranges from 200 to 1000,
with 800 set as the State goal. With all these targets and measures in the school
system, who is ultimately responsible for the thorough implementation of the
standards-based curriculum, instructional guidelines, and assessment?
As the standards for student achievement define what the students must know
and do, the leadership, traditionally represented in public schools by principals, is
left to figure out how to make this happen for all those that form part of the system:
students, teachers, staff, and themselves. Elmore (1999) affirmed that, “Leaders are
responsible for helping to make possible what they require others to do” (p. 5).
Accountability is, then, the second component presented here, as it forms an
important variable in the changing role of school principals and school leaders.
Accountability is defined as “the willingness and ability to give an account of one’s
actions, to fully describe and explain; it is also the willingness to accept the
consequences of one’s actions according to agreed-upon commitments” (Goldberg &
Morrison, 2003, p. 63). Using a school reform accountability lens, the questions are:
To whom is the principal or leader responsible?, For what functions, and With what
consequences? (Burke, 2004). Local public school leaders are accountable to the
educational institution stakeholders including the students, staff, site and district
administrators, community members, state legislators and the general public. They
are responsible for leading their staff in the efficient implementation of the
standards-based curriculum, instructional guidelines, and assessment, as well as for
promoting and sustaining student achievement. The consequences include sanctions,
6
like school closure and loss of funds, for lack of growth as measured in the CSTs
scores and reflected in the school’s Academic Performance Index. Additionally, each
school must meet a federally established Annual Yearly Progress (AYP); this is
represented by a set percentage of pupils in each school needing to achieve levels of
proficiency or above in the areas of math and language arts. Accountability, and
therefore consequences for poor academic outcomes, is shouldered by principals and
district administrators. And yet, the overarching question remains how to orchestrate
and implement public school reform efficiently.
The literature has abundant information documenting the need to improve the
American public education system, and describing what this should look like
(Marzano, 2003). Nevertheless, more research is needed on how to accomplish this
goal, along with empirical findings, to add to the existing, yet limited knowledge
base. While accountability demands proliferate, there is a knowledge gap about how
to set appropriate processes and structures to accomplish them (O’Day, 2002).
Fullan, Cuttress, and Kilcher (2005) affirm that a missing ingredient in the history of
educational reform is what they term change knowledge, described as,
“understanding and insight about the process of change and the key drivers that make
for successful change in practice” (p.54). Furthermore, Fullan et al., (2005) assert
that, “The presence of change knowledge does not guarantee success, but its absence
ensures failure” (p. 54). For school leadership teams, but most especially for
principals, the acquisition and mastery of this change knowledge has been difficult to
7
achieve due to the amount of modifications and demands that their job
responsibilities have faced.
As mentioned previously, one of the aspects brought about by school reform
efforts is increased stringent accountability of student achievement. Consequently, at
a local level the role of principals in educational organizations has been the target of
increased pressure, scrutiny, and evaluation as student achievement and school
functioning are equated with leadership qualities. Additionally, to be considered
efficient professionals by staff members and community stakeholders, principals
have to establish themselves as instructional leaders (Fullan, 2002).
Principals, as school-level leaders, have conventionally been thought of as
managers in charge of overlooking the educational process. Murphy (2006)
described the 20
th
century school administration literature as filled with “hierarchical
and bureaucratic pillars of management-authority, control, impersonality, and
division of labor” (p. 52). Traditionally, principals’ role and function as school
leaders have been characterized by a top-down, authoritarian approach to leadership.
Under this style, the emphasis has been on assignments, job obligations, line of
command, and results, with little emphasis placed on people or process (Northouse,
2004). Consequently, leadership in public school settings has customarily been of an
individualistic and controlling nature, with principals being the sole site decision-
makers. However, as research on student achievement, changes brought about by
school reform, and greater complexity in the job of principals have shed some light
8
on the effects of leadership on school attainment, the traditional school leadership
model has begun to change.
Various approaches have emerged from the literature on what to do to assist
schools and leaders improve. Common themes found in all these perspectives,
nonetheless, include the decentralization of power and decision-making, increased
collaboration, and organizational change (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Foundational to these principles is a need to redefine the traditional concept of
leadership, from an individualistic-type to one that incorporates teams in the
functions, responsibilities, and tasks of school leaders. Furthermore, regarding this
redefinition, Elmore (2000) asserted that this paradigm shift involves moving away
from “role-based conceptions and toward distributed views” (p. 35). The
development in the processes, structures, and roles of school-level leaders requires
professional preparation, practice, and experience to address the demands brought
about by school reform.
Organized by the Council of Chief State School Officers and published in
1996 to address these concerns, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) created standards with goals that included the need to “acknowledge the
changing role of the school leader” and “recognize the collaborative nature of school
leadership” (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 1996, p. 7). The six
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards, which have been adopted
in California, state that:
9
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by
• facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
• advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
• ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a
safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
• collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
• acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
• understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context (CCSSO, 1996).
For leaders to be successful in guiding schools toward achievement and
growth, the goals of public education, leadership must be of a collaborative nature in
this era of school reform. Fullan (2002) warned that, “An organization cannot
flourish on the actions of the top leader alone. Schools and districts need many
leaders at many levels” (p. 20). Moreover, in describing the role of leaders, Bolman
and Deal (2004) stated that in order to run an organization successfully, leaders must
view situations from different angles, allowing for a wider view and assessment of
situations. This premise, framed within the characteristics of today’s schools,
requires greater involvement in the leadership practices and dynamics of those
10
working in the organization. It also calls for a change in the culture, or the behaviors
and belief systems socially established in the school (Ormrod, 2006). Teams, then,
are a vital component in the expanded and more effective definition of leadership in
the 21
st
century (DuFour, 2002; Fullan, 2002; Marzano, 2003). With traditionally
uniform school leadership models characterized by a top-down, individualistic
decision-making approach, principals are facing challenges that push for a shift away
from this paradigm and call for the incorporation of other school members in the
leadership team.
Today’s school principals have three different roles to assume: managerial,
political, and instructional (Cuban, 1988, in Spillane and Diamond, 2007).
Managerial tasks include budgeting, hiring, scheduling, school planning, and general
building maintenance (Spillane & Diamond, 2007). Political tasks include assessing
how school decisions are made and how power is distributed, creating alliances with
stakeholders, persuading and negotiating with staff members and other
administrators, and building coalitions (Bolman & Deal, 2004). Best presented by
Cohen & Ball, (1998), the instructional role “encompasses work that relates to the
instructional unit-the intersection of teachers, students, and materials” (as cited in
Spillane & Diamond, 2007, p.19). Instructional activities involve supervising and
evaluating teachers, encouraging professional growth, developing the school’s
mission statement, and instructional planning (Krug, 1992; Marzano, 2003).
Historically, however, managerial-type activities have predominated the job and
responsibilities of principals (Spillane & Diamond, 2007).
11
In order to be effective leaders in their managerial, political, and instructional
functions, literature findings indicate the need for principals to shift towards working
conditions characterized by a team approach (Davis, et al., 2005; DuFour, 2002;
Elmore, 2000; Northouse, 2004;). The how of the leadership structures, processes,
and relationships at the local level, in order to create achievement and school
improvement, needs to be further explored and empirical findings added to the
limited body of literature (O’Day, 2002). Furthermore, the role of the teachers, who
exert the greatest instructional influence on student outcomes (Lambert, 2003;
Marzano, 2003), and the impact of their leadership ability and actions both at the
school and classroom levels, need to be incorporated in the school reform literature.
Instructional leadership, as it was conceptualized in the early 1980s,
“identified strong, directive leadership focused on curriculum and instruction from
the principal as a characteristic …” (Edmonds, 1979; Leithwood & Montgomery,
1982; as cited in Hallinger, 2003, p. 341). Thus, the principal’s instructional role
was equated with instructional leadership. As school restructuring developed,
however, other leadership concepts popularized, indicating a general discontent with
the emphasis placed on the principal as the focal point of the instructional leadership
function. These concepts included teacher leadership, shared leadership, distributed
leadership, and transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003). A common theme
embedded in all these concepts is teacher leadership, with the importance in the roles
of teachers as instructional leaders varying according to the framework and lens
used.
12
Although the pivotal role of teachers on the teaching-learning process, as
well as their effect on students, has been documented (Elmore, 2000; Marzano, 2001,
2003; & Omrod, 2006), literature incorporating educators as a part of the school
leadership team is limited (Krovetz & Arriaza, 2006). In describing the critical role
of leadership, Marzano (2003) stated that this is most effective “when carried out by
a small group of educators with the principal functioning as a strong cohesive force”
(p. 174). The role of the principal is very important and this individual symbolizes
the conceptual leader as the school’s administrator. Nevertheless, the teachers must
also be part of the leadership team. Lovely (2005) equates the leadership functions of
effective schools as resembling a web, embedded in an open structure of control,
decision-making, and authority. Under this perspective, the line dividing the roles of
principals and teacher leaders becomes blurred. Thus, the question emerges: What is
teacher leadership?
The literature has overlapping and competing definitions of teacher
leadership, which generates confusion about its exact meaning (Muijs & Harris,
2003). A widely used definition among scholars, produced by Katzenmeyer and
Moller (2001), explains the concept by expressing that “teachers who are leaders
lead within and beyond the classroom, identify with and contribute to a community
of teacher learners and leaders, and influence others towards improved educational
practice” (p. 17). Teacher leadership encompasses three functions: leadership of
students and other educators, leadership of operational tasks, and leadership through
decision-making or association (Muijs & Harris, 2003). Teacher leadership,
13
therefore, entails school-level leaders’ functions and roles that are decentralized and
shared. Elmore (2000) called for a re-conceptualization of leadership, toward one
that is distributed and advocates “a clearer set of design principles to guide the
practice of large-scale improvement” (p. 35). Consequently, foundational to school
leadership, including instructional, teacher, and shared forms of leadership, is the
how of the practices, structures, and relationships among those involved in the
leadership process. This process, then, must be shared and distributed.
Decision-making, collaboration, and leadership dispersed throughout
members of an educational organization have important potential benefits. Although
distributed leadership is fairly novel, some empirical studies influenced by this
framework have been conducted (Gronn, 2006; Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers,
2007; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). The practice component is the focus
in distributed leadership and it “is distributed over leaders, followers, and the
school’s situation or context” (Spillane et al., 2004, as cited in Scribner et al., 2007).
Under this framework, a key element is represented by the interaction between
members of the educational organization (Gronn, 2006). Thus, decisions are made
collaboratively and there is on-going communication and dialogue. Moreover, Harris
(2004) further stated that, “Distributed leadership concentrates on engaging expertise
wherever it exists within the organization rather than seeking this only through
formal position or role” (p. 13).
There appear to be great potential benefits to a deeper understanding and
application of shared forms of leadership, including distributed leadership, in school
14
settings, incorporating the political, cultural, and economic aspects embedded in this
environment. Although some evidence suggests that these leadership practices
produce more positive school outcomes than the traditional approach mentioned
earlier, there is a gap in the research and more empirical studies are needed to
understand if there is a direct causal relationship between shared and distributed
leadership and school improvement (Harris, 2004; Hartley, 2007). Equally important
is the study of the effects of these forms of leadership on instructional, curricular,
and managerial practices, teacher motivation, ability, and action.
Purpose of the Study
Through the use of a comparative case study approach, this study explored
how distributed and shared forms of leadership influence teachers’ motivation,
ability, and actions, and if these resulted in enhanced instructional leadership skills
generating school improvement. The researcher also examined the role,
responsibility, and effect of school-level leaders in fostering and developing
leadership ability among teachers. The literature describes what school improvement
and student outcomes should look like in educational organizations across America.
It also points to the evolving nature in school leaders’ role from the traditional top-
down and bureaucratic, to one that involves interaction and collaboration with other
individuals in the process. However, an important gap exists in the current literature
on what leadership paradigm is most effective in helping principals and other school-
15
level leaders learn how to create the structures, processes, and relationships at their
sites that generate teacher leadership ability and action capable of producing
educational reform mandated changes, and effective instructional leaders and
managers.
Research Questions
The aim of this qualitative research study was to investigate school-level
leadership practices through a distributed leadership lens. The following research
question guided this study:
Do distributed leadership practices in school systems result in increased
teacher motivation, ability, and action towards leadership (i.e. instructional
leadership or practices)?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were addressed:
1. How are characteristics of a distributive leadership framework exemplified in
the actions of the school?
2. How does the implementation of distributed forms of leadership at the school
level translate into the classroom?
Significance of the Study
School reforms in the last few decades have brought about the need to
redefine the role and responsibilities of school leaders. Alongside this, standards-
based education and accountability have added increased pressure and demands on
school principals’ jobs. As a consequence, the traditional managerial role of the
principal has evolved and broadened. Instructional, team, distributed, and shared
16
leadership are all terms used to define the new forms of leadership found in 21
st
century schools throughout America. A theme common in these concepts is the
inclusion of school-level leaders. However, there is a gap in the literature, in terms of
how leadership is effectuated in order to motivate, impart knowledge, and generate
leadership actions among teachers that ultimately, translate into school improvement
and effective leadership practices. This study contributed to the literature in this area
by providing depth and breadth and with it, understanding of the leadership process
both at the school and at the classroom levels.
Furthermore, this study added empirical data to existing theories of shared
forms of leadership. In particular, data on distributed leadership practices and their
effect on decision-making, collaboration, interactions, emerging leadership, and
teacher empowerment was collected. Scholars, practitioners, and the general public
can benefit from information added to the literature, as it was achieved through this
study, helping understand and decipher the how of current school leadership
practices.
17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the greatest challenges that education will face over the next several
decades is understanding leadership practice as a basis for thinking about its
improvement (Spillane, 2006, p. 89).
The purpose of this study was to explore the roles, interactions, and effects of
school-level leaders in fostering and developing leadership ability among teachers.
Shared and distributed forms of leadership and their influence on teachers’
motivation, ability, and actions were examined. Moreover, this study sought to
establish if distributed forms of leadership resulted in enhanced leadership skills
potentially generating school improvement. As mentioned in the previous chapter, an
important gap exists in the literature on what leadership framework is most effective
in helping school-level leaders learn how to create the structures, processes, and
relationships at their sites that generate leadership ability, instructional improvement,
and school achievement, thus addressing present school reform challenges.
In this chapter, I present school leadership frameworks currently used, their
components, and findings on the effects the frameworks have on school-level
leaders’ ability and instructional leadership practices. To do this efficiently, an
overview of educational leadership approaches is presented, thus providing a context
and connection to the changes and evolution experienced in school leadership
practices over the last decades. Emphasis is placed on distributed leadership, as it
comprised the focus of the research question, “Do distributed leadership practices in
school systems result in increased teacher motivation, ability, and action towards
leadership?”
18
There are some similarities in leadership theories early in the last century that
characterize a paradigm about leadership. These similarities are briefly summarized
to provide a context and a contrast to current views on school leadership. This
summary is then connected with instructional leadership, given that this paradigm
developed and followed as the pressure brought about by education reform measures
increased and demanded more effective forms of leadership. After instructional
leadership, shared forms of leadership are discussed and analyzed. Main aspects of
team and distributed leadership frameworks are incorporated and highlighted in the
discussion, as they relate to the theme of the study, development of school-level
leadership. Additionally, distributed leadership perspectives address the research
questions introduced earlier, and hold potential in school leadership practices.
Finally, and following the school leadership models, the roles of teachers as
leaders are examined and analyzed. Of particular importance and interest, teachers’
leadership functions and practices are pivotal in understanding how various
leadership models influence and affect them. Thus, formal school leaders and
teachers’ motivation, ability, and actions, as it relates to leadership roles and
functions, are analyzed through a distributed leadership lens. This review of the
literature provides a comprehensive anchor, along with a foundational framework,
upon which the study was constructed, the research questions were investigated, and
the findings were added to the current school leadership literature.
19
Early Models of School Leadership
The evolving needs and pressures of society have brought about changes in
education. These reforms have varied from mild to more rigorous, and have been
characterized by some common goals among stakeholders and policymakers, which
include improvement of student achievement and the competitiveness of the
American educational system. Conventional knowledge in school reform contexts
sustains the long-held belief of hierarchical, top-down approaches as the most
appropriate form of school leadership. Consequently, these have been associated
with either the cause or the result of reform mandates and their effects. Scholars,
however, have documented that top-down and “pecking order” styles do not
necessarily create effective change (Cuban, 2004; Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000).
School leaders, both at the school site and district levels, have been
traditionally equated with leadership and management. However, the increasing
complexity of school issues demands a closer look at all aspects of school leadership,
including organization, structures, functions, processes, roles, formal and informal
leaders, followers, specifics of the environment’s situation, and interactions.
Consequently, leadership models that are more comprehensive and innovative than
the traditional ones and that broaden the scope of the leadership team are needed in
today’s schools. There are various models of school leadership. An overview,
description, and research of a few of these models are presented to inform this
literature review.
20
Traditional Leadership
Early century theories of school leadership, probably best symbolized by the
original single-room schoolhouse led by a master teacher, were widespread in
schools across the nation for more than a century. Characterized by authoritative and
managerial leadership styles, this paradigm guided theoretical and empirical
leadership research for a long time. Given the emphasis the research literature placed
on the formal leadership of head teachers, the types of leadership that can be spread
among many functions and roles in the school were overlooked (Harris, 2004).
The leaders in early school leadership approaches were characterized by
leading unilaterally, making organizational decisions alone, and delivering those
decisions for followers to carry out. Furthermore, leaders were perceived as powerful
and charismatic (Northouse, 2004). The context, as well as other individuals and
aspects in the school environment, were secondary components in this framework
where leaders’ responsibilities encompassed management and leadership functions
and roles. This conceptual model expanded beyond the single-room schoolhouses, as
schools became more complex.
Many advantages evolved from early school leadership theories. Some of
these advantages and factors have remained over the years and through the
development of school leadership concepts, forming part of shared models of
leadership used in schools today. Order, structure and task coordination, visible
leadership, and a sense of direction are among these factors. Boyd and Crowson
(2002), in a review of the literature on organizational structures and their
21
effectiveness, found incongruence between what was identified as negative elements
of early leadership theories and what is implemented decades later. For instance, the
hierarchical aspect of more traditional school leadership approaches has been
criticized as being too controlling and capable of stifling the skills and leadership
ability of others in the organization (Blasé, 2000; Elmore, 2000; Murphy, 2000), yet
hierarchical leadership styles still predominate school contexts today. As explained
by Muijs and Harris, “the vast leadership literature however reveals that it is largely
premised upon individual endeavor rather than collective action, and a single view of
leadership continues to dominate, equating leadership with headship” and “the ‘great
man’ theory of leadership prevails. Possibly, this is because schools as organizational
structures remain largely unchanged, equating leadership with status, authority and
position” (2003, p. 437).
School leadership research thus indicates that leadership in early school
models was represented by the school principal or headmaster, who was in charge of
organizational management, leadership, and decision-making. However, over the
past 30 years new conceptual models have transpired in the area of school
leadership, focusing on the manner in which educational leadership affects
instructional outcomes, and the role of school leaders in this process (Hallinger,
2003). At least three developments have been identified as precursors for the changes
in school leadership paradigms: (a) severe criticism of authoritative leadership,
which has produced more inclusive leadership approaches; (b) the establishment, in
the last decade, of a relationship between schools’ educational leadership and school
22
improvement; and (c) added emphasis on the responsibilities and roles of classroom
teachers in processes of effective school restructuring (Andrews & Crowther, 2002).
Newer conceptual models, hence, have a broader scope and greater flexibility than in
early century theories of school leadership.
Instructional Leadership
As curricular reform and the effective schools movement took place in the
last quarter of the 20
th
century, the conceptualization and structure of leadership, as
conceived by the early theories of leadership, began to evolve. At the center of this
was the changing focus on the role of the principal, traditionally characterized by
organizational management and leadership duties (Lemahieu, Roy, & Foss, 1997).
Increased demands on leadership functions and processes associated with curriculum
and instruction, as opposed to solely leadership roles, added pressure externally as
well as internally, therefore creating the conditions and buy-in necessary for change
(Kezar, 2001). Instructional leadership thus emerged, as a result of outside pressure
on school leaders to shape, develop, and supervise instructional practices in school
settings. In a comprehensive review of the literature on instructional leadership,
Hallinger presents the following observations:
• First, instructional leadership was conceived as a role carried out by the
school principal. Relatively little reference was made to teachers as
instructional leaders, or even to assistant principals and department heads
with respect to this role. There was little or no discussion of instructional
leadership as a distributed characteristic or function.
23
• Instructional leaders were described as strong, directive leaders who had
been successful at ‘turning their schools around.’
• Instructional leaders were viewed as culture builders. They sought to create
an ‘academic press’ that fostered high expectations and standards for
students, as well as for teachers.
• Instructional leaders focused on coordinating, controlling, supervising, and
developing curriculum and instruction. There was a clear emphasis, again,
on the principal’s management of the school’s instructional program.
• Instructional leaders seemed to lead from a combination of expertise and
charisma.
• Instructional leaders were goal-oriented, and focused primarily on the
improvement of student academic outcomes.
• Instructional leadership was characterized as a rational model of leadership.
The underlying conceptualization assumed that school would improve if
principals led the creation of certain structural conditions. (2005, pp. 6-8).
The instructional model redefined the focus of leadership, giving it different
and greater latitude than it had in the past. Curriculum, instruction, and learning
purposes and functions became part of the instructional leadership paradigm, thereby
expanding leaders’ conventional leadership and management responsibilities and
practices (Howe, 1994). However, although instructional leadership recognized and
incorporated curriculum, instruction, and learning components, leadership functions
were still the sole responsibility of school principals. These new components,
24
traditionally within the realm of teachers’ roles and functions, were beyond
principals’ areas of professional training and expertise.
The literature suggests that effective instructional leadership must be rooted
in the school culture and must incorporate peer coaching, reflective discussion,
collaboration, study groups, analysis, and exploration to foster professional
communication among educators (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). Until the effective schools
movement and with it, the development of instructional leadership models, teachers
generally did not assume formal or informal leadership positions and roles. However,
the “instructional leadership focus gave way to reform efforts based on teacher
empowerment. Standards-based and systemic reform … promoted the devolution of
authority and the transformation of the governance landscape through site-based
management and shared decision making” (Lemahieu, 1997, p. 583). Consequently,
one of the effects of the push for teacher empowerment that formed part of
instructional leadership was an increased emphasis on teacher participation in
leadership activities.
In summary, the literature on instructional leadership points to important
limitations and strengths. The instructional model of leadership lacks defined
organizational structures and processes for the development of teacher leadership.
Therefore, there is minimal convergence and exchange between teachers’ and formal
leaders’ instructional, managerial, and leadership activities (Hallinger, 2005). Also,
research on instructional leadership consistently evidences principals’ avoidance of
instructional tasks, even when anticipated as part of the instructional leadership
25
model (Cuban, 1988). Another constraint is the absence of empirical evidence
demonstrating that principals spend a greater amount of time directly watching,
exploring, and supervising classroom teaching than they did 25 years ago (Hallinger
& Heck, 1996). Curriculum and instruction are essential tenets of the instructional
leadership paradigm, yet the organization’s political, structural, and managerial roles
drive its daily functioning and fully occupy the time of those in formal leadership
positions, including the principal. Under the instructional perspective, teachers are in
charge of delivering instruction in their classrooms, yet have minimum saying on
instructional leadership decisions. Thus, development of teacher leadership skills is
not encouraged under this model. On the other hand, instructional structures and
processes have received a new and more significant connotation as a result of the
instructional leadership paradigm (Blasé & Blasé, 1999). Equally important, research
on this model has established that effective instructional leadership practices are
rooted in the school culture. Consequently, creating a school mission and building a
positive school culture are associated with the instructional leadership model (Blasé
& Blasé, 1999; Hallinger, 2005, Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
Models of Shared School Leadership
School leadership models have become more complex over the years. For a
long time, leadership paradigms in the public school sector have placed the sole
responsibility of leadership functions and roles on site administrators. Nevertheless,
“principals are expected to serve the often conflicting needs and interests of many
stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers … As a result, many scholars and
26
practitioners argue that the job requirements far exceed the reasonable capacities of
any one person” (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
As school needs change, leadership frameworks continue evolving. Although
there still exists a strong adherence to and push for top-down models, aspects of
bottom-up approaches are becoming more common. Moreover, as top-down pushes
and influences bottom-up leadership, there is a convergence of the two and this
brings about new aspects in school leadership paradigms. Emerging research points
to the need for “the development of collaborative decision-making strategies,
distributed leadership practices, a culture of collegiality and community… and
processes for organizational change and renewal” (Davis et al., 2005). Important
gaps in research exist that surround aspects of the how of the leadership processes in
schools, the manner in which groups of people lead and work together, and the
structures and procedures that encourage efficient teacher leadership skills
development. The literature calls for shared models of leadership (Elmore, 2000;
Davis et al, 2005; Gronn 2000; Marzano, 2006;). There are various frameworks of
shared leadership. Some of these models, which share similar basic tenets, have been
around for many years. Several of these concepts have evolved over time and with it,
their defining components; distributed leadership, for instance, shares many
characteristics that align with shared leadership, team leadership, and group
leadership. Next, I will describe, compare, and summarize the research on team and
distributive leadership perspectives.
27
Team Leadership
Increased demands and complexity in educational organizations, along with
the need for individuals to work collaborative and in groups, facilitated the
emergence of team leadership. Northouse (2004) cites Hill’s (2004) team leadership
research, which describes two essential functions of team leadership: a functional
job, whereby individuals working together complete their tasks; and a maintenance
function, where the goal is team functioning and maintenance roles. Team leadership
is defined “as a collective and collaborative process focused on relationships and
networks” (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006, p. 63).
Team leaders work towards helping the group attain effectiveness. Thus, the
leadership role of leaders centers on helping the team achieve to potential. With the
complexity of group dynamics and the demands that characterize today’s public
schools throughout the country, this model allows leaders to identify the current
needs of their teams and propose needed actions (Northouse, 2004). The goal of
collective effectiveness sets this approach apart from earlier school leadership
conceptual models.
Team leadership diverges from traditional top-down leadership in many
important aspects. These include: (a) the group shares the responsibility for its
effectiveness, not a leader; (b) final decisions are made by the team, and not
controlled by the leader; (c) the group is seen by the leader as an “interacting and
collective team,” and not as a collection of individuals; (d) the team’s position and
power are emphasized, while individual authoritative leadership positions are de-
28
emphasized and discouraged; (e) the functional tasks of the group, including
emergent ones, are shared by the whole group; (f) the maintenance roles of the team
are shared and performed collectively and collaboratively; (g) relationships,
interactions, and social group processes are part of group dynamics and thus watched
carefully by team leaders; and (h) team leaders support and deal openly with team
members’ feelings and needs (Bradford, 1976, as cited in Yukl, 1989).
Research on team leadership conducted during the last decades has added
other components to the earlier literature on it. For instance, groups working
collaboratively and developing a relationship among its members have been
conceptualized and referred to as a culture, or “teams-as-cultures.” A key element of
viewing the team as a culture is the acknowledgement of differences among group
members and how these represent an advantage, capable of producing various
interpretations. Consequently, these individual differences have the potential to
facilitate the development of cognitive complexity (Kezar et al., 2006).
Working in teams brings about new elements into the leadership process. To
illustrate, teachers are brought into the leadership function and therefore move closer
to and form part of the school leadership dynamics. This is a major change from the
teacher isolation and individualistic-style instructional practices of earlier times
(Fullan, 1993). An advantage to the educational organization, the school literature
provides evidence on the increased effectiveness of group decision-making that
includes the input and participation of teachers (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 1993;
Marzano, 2003). Another important component of team leadership is that it
29
recognizes the changing needs in the job of leaders in school organizations.
Moreover, Northouse (2004) explains that, “any team member can perform the
critical leadership functions to assess the current effectiveness of the team and then
take appropriate action(s)” (p. 222). Allowing team leadership roles and functions to
rotate among various group members represents a shift from earlier approaches,
where the formal group leader exercised the control of the decision-making process.
It also fosters team members’ development of collegiality, communication, and
interpersonal relationships and expertise, creating the conditions for stronger and
more effective group leadership practices.
The literature identifies some limitations of the team leadership conceptual
framework. These include thin evidence, absence of comprehensive studies on team
dynamics and processes under this model, and research limited to the results of
decisions made by team leaders. Northouse (2004) cites the complexity of team
leadership as an advantage as well as a limitation, as the intricacy of the approach
makes it difficult for leaders to find answers to challenging decisions and tasks.
Kezar and others (2006) point to the need for the team leadership model to address
the difficulties of creating a team in hierarchical organizations.
Teachers, as implementers of instructional decisions and reform efforts are to
form part of school leadership teams. Moreover, the literature documents that in spite
of the growing “use of teams in schools as a means for involving teachers in broader
decision-making processes …, we know very little about how these teams actually
work. In particular, we lack clarity in understanding the interactional processes that
30
influence relative team outcomes” (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007, p.
72). The focus of research on school teams has generally centered on the qualities of
team leaders who have been identified as successful (Scribner et al., 2007). The
question remains how to maximize the potential inherent in working collaboratively
and collectively in a group, as in a team leadership model and, most importantly,
how to effectively distributive leadership roles and functions throughout the
educational organization. The team leadership model adds important facets to the
existing literature on school leadership. Nevertheless, it fails to address how
leadership develops among other members of the group besides leaders, including
teachers, and how this leadership transfers onto the various functions and structures
of the school.
Distributed Leadership
As challenges and demands on the public school system continue to surface
and claim more efficient ways to lead schools, scrutiny, innovation, and change
inevitably occur. Leadership scholars have documented important gaps and flaws in
school leadership conceptual frameworks’ ability to efficiently address contemporary
educational system needs. A theory of leadership that addresses current school
reform imperatives is timely. Distributive leadership is presented by many scholars
in the field (Gronn, 2000; Harris, 2004; Lashway, 2003; Spillane, 2006) as a viable
and novel option.
Distributed leadership is defined as “a form of collective agency
incorporating the activities of many individuals in a school who work at mobilizing
31
and guiding other teachers in the process of instructional change” (Harris, 2004, p.
14). Hence, the foundation in a distributed conceptual framework lies in the
relationship of the leadership practice exercised by various members in an
educational organization. In practical terms, this is represented by the dynamics
occurring between leaders, followers, and the leadership practice. In school settings,
leadership is therefore extended to individuals other than the principals. Spillane’s
(2006) research addresses this and includes the situation as another important
element in the leadership dynamics, thus expressing that a “distributed view of
leadership shifts the focus from school principals … and other formal and informal
leaders to the web of leaders, followers, and their situations that gives form to
leadership practice” (p. 3). A network of leaders, followers, their situations and
leadership practices, then, describes leadership through a distributed lens.
The major framework components of distributed leadership are presented by
Spillane (2006, 2007), and expanded upon by other scholars in the field (Gronn,
2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001; Harris, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000). A description of these aspects follows.
Components of Distributed Leadership
Leaders and followers. An essential component in a distributed leadership
framework is the expansion of the leadership functions and roles to various
individuals in the organization. In her review of school leadership research, Harris
(2004) referenced the presence of a blind spot in the literature. This is represented by
the accentuated emphasis that research has placed on formal and traditional
32
leadership roles in schools, resulting in neglect to “the kinds of leadership that can be
distributed among many roles and functions in the school” (Harris, p. 12). A
distributed model represents an important shift in this aspect of the traditional
paradigm as it recognizes the importance of other individuals in the leadership
process. Coined by Spillane (2006) as ‘the leader-plus aspect,’ the framework
recognizes that managing and leading schools involves a net of individuals beyond
those in formal leadership roles (Spillane, 2007; Frost, 2005; Elmore, 2000). An
important component in the development of the model is the incorporation of
teachers into this net. Empirical evidence adds to this facet as it documents the
critical importance of incorporating teachers’ expertise in school leadership practices
(Heller and Firestone, 1995; Marzano, 2003).
Along with leaders, the role of followers is vital as it shapes the interaction
that occurs between them and therefore, helps define leadership practice. The
dynamics in the relationship and interactions between leaders and followers in a
distributed leadership model is more fluid than in traditional approaches,
encouraging the mobility and transfer of these roles according to the emerging needs
of the organization. Regarding the influence and relevance that leaders and followers
exercise on each other, Spillane and Diamond (2007) expressed, “Leaders influence
followers by motivating actions, enhancing knowledge, and potentially shaping the
practice of followers. These influences are connected to the core work of the
organization -teaching and learning in classrooms- through teachers ... leadership
connects to classroom practice through followers” (p. 9). Hence, understanding the
33
role of followers is not only indispensable in developing a deeper understanding of
leadership interactions and practices, but also on how leadership develops both at the
school and classroom-levels. Moreover, given the fluidity inherent in a distributed
perspective, followers are potential “leaders in development.”
Situation. The situation involves tools, organizational routines, structures,
and other aspects of the situation. Spillane and Diamond (2007) state that the
“situation is both the medium for practice and outcome of practice. As the medium
for practice, aspects… offer both affordances and constraints…In turn, leadership
practice also can transform aspects of the situation over time…” (p. 10). Situation
and practice are thus closely intertwined in a distributed leadership approach.
Moreover, the situation represents the component within the framework with the
capability to enhance or deprive leadership ability, motivation, and actions among
leaders, potential leaders, and followers. Spillane and Diamond (2007) stress the
importance of identifying and researching facets of the situation that limit and
facilitate practice, while also documenting the form in which these aspects are
changed in practice.
In a study sponsored by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL)
in England, Oduro (2004a) identified and reported on factors, which he coined
“push,” or promoters, and “pull,” or inhibitors, that affect the situation and
consequently, the incorporation of distributed leadership practices in schools. Figure
1 provides a visual representation of some of the factors in Oduro’s findings:
34
Figure 1. Distributed Leadership’s Promoters and Inhibitors Factors
Promoters Factors Inhibitors Factors
Figure 1: Adapted from Distributed leadership in schools: What English head-teachers say
about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors (p. 24) by G. Oduro, 2004b. British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, England.
Practice. A primordial component of a distributed leadership model, yet one
commonly misunderstood, is the process and development of leadership practices.
Scholars caution against the tendency to use “additive models” to analyze and grasp
this type of leadership practice, whereby the actions of various leaders is summed up
and the results conceptualized as distributed leadership practices (Gronn, 2002;
Spillane, Diamond, and Jita, 2003; Spillane, 2006). The interactions represent the
core of the practice in this leadership approach. Therefore, the form of the practice
Willingness to
Challenge
Support
Risk Taking
Recognition
Trust
Willingness to Change
Common Vision
Willingness to Share
Appropriate Skills &
Knowledge
D I S T R I B U T E D L E A D E R S H I P
Insecurity
Dishonesty
Accountability
Distrust
Workload
Hierarchical Structure
Unwillingness to change
35
must be analyzed and researched as a form of collective leadership. The distributive
practice is a complex process and it is encompassed across leaders, followers, their
situation, and their interactions. Understanding what happens in and in between these
interactions is expressed by Spillane, “ A critical challenge involves unpacking how
leadership practice is stretched over leaders. One way to do this is by analyzing the
interdependencies among leaders’ actions” (2006, p. 57).
Distributed leadership involves social activity shaped by the
interrelationships and interactions that form the practice. Scholars provide and add
various and diverse components to a definition of distributed leadership presently
characterized by a lack of conceptual agreement, thus generating criticism among
school leadership researchers. Nonetheless, the literature does present important
social elements that both help enhance the understanding of the distributed
framework, and guide needed empirical research in the practice facet of this form of
leadership.
Within the social arena of the school setting, scholars agree that the teacher is
a major leadership component of a distributed model. This has important practical
and research applications to add to the limited empirical knowledge base on the
practice aspect of the framework. Elmore (2000) defined leadership as distributed
through the educational organization and represented by its members’ knowledge,
expertise, attitudes, and skills. Teachers as well as administrators thus add to the
multiple leader effect of the organization as they bring in a diverse array of
capabilities and experiences that complement and fortify the leadership process
36
toward a common culture of expectations (Elmore, 2000; Spillane & Diamond,
2007). The social distribution of leadership, then, helps anchor the leadership
practice.
A leading distributed leadership scholar, Gronn (2000) proposes the re-
conceptualization of leadership as a socially distributed activity theory, where the
activity connects the organizational structures with the agency, or actions, and
agents. Activity theory encourages the separation of labor for the maximization of
expertise in the social constructs, while fostering influence and interdependence.
Gronn states:
Organizational influence is frequently reciprocal. The explanation for this
feature lies in the division of labour. Inherent in the division of labour is a
duality between specialization and interdependence. That is, tasks are broken
down into their detailed specialist components, which are then performed by
different individuals. But this fragmentation of effort leaves each worker
dependent on others for the completion of an overall task. Paradoxically,
then, labour (i.e. Leont’ev’s notion of operation) has to be reintegrated at the
same time as it is differentiated (Sayer and Walker, 1992: 15–17). Influence
is one means of reintegrating work tasks to achieve cooperatively generated
outcomes. (p. 330).
Influenced by and building on Gronn’s (2000) socially distributed activity principles
and Elmore’s (2000) social distribution perspectives of leadership, Spillane and his
colleagues (2006) have identified three categories of leadership practice distribution:
37
collaborated distribution, collective distribution, and coordinated distribution. These
categories help clarify essential practice aspects in a distributed perspective and,
more importantly, aid in setting this conceptual framework apart from other types of
leadership.
Types of Leadership Distribution
Collaborated distribution. Collaborated distribution is characterized by two
or more leaders working together in the same place and time to accomplish the same
leadership routine. As such, “collaborated distribution involves a reciprocal
interdependency, in which the actions of different leaders involve input from one
another in co-performing a leadership routine. Reciprocal interdependencies involve
individuals playing off one another…” (Spillane, 2006, p. 61). An important effect of
collaborated distribution is the potential of leaders to limit or facilitate, through their
actions, the motivation, capacity, and agency of those co-performing with them; the
reverse is equally valid due to the reciprocal interdependency nature of this type of
distribution.
Spillane and his colleagues draw from their experiences on the “Distributed
Leadership Study,” conducted over a five-year span in the Chicago area schools that
began in 1999. They noted that collaborated distribution was more commonly found
in routines like staff development, grade-level meetings, and curriculum committee
meetings than in evaluative type of leadership tasks. This type of distribution
facilitates co-practice stretched over interacting leaders.
38
Collective distribution. Collective distribution involves leaders co-performing
and working towards a shared leadership routine separately, yet still interdependently
of each other; this interdependency of thinking is not confined to a common place or
time. This type of distribution holds great potential and is of particular interest in this
study, as it provides a conceptual lens into the leadership motivation, ability, and
action of teachers. Teachers work independently, yet towards the shared mission and
goals of the school culture. Collective distribution of leadership parallels many of the
organizational routines carried out by teachers on a daily basis, including evaluation
of curriculum, analysis and assessment of student performance, and participation in
various school-level management committees. These activities have the capability of
stretching co-performance leadership more effectively, inciting teacher motivation
and capacity and with, the development of leadership skills and performance.
Coordinated distribution. Coordinated distribution describes leadership
practices formed by tasks that are to be completed sequentially in order for the
leadership routine to be performed. The leaders can co-perform independently or
together. Interdependence is maintained as completion of an activity by a leader or
group of leaders precedes the task that follows. Thus, synchronicity of the school
leadership process is embedded in coordinated distributed practices, as dictated by
the interactions of leaders, followers, and their situation.
Permeating distributed practices of leadership is the concept of heedfulness,
defined by Spillane as “the way in which a set of behaviors is performed: groups act
heedfully when they act carefully, intelligently, purposefully, and attentively” (2006,
39
p. 59). Leaders do not have to be in agreement, but they must be both attentive and
alert to other leaders’ actions (Spillane, 2006; Spillane et al., 2001). Leadership in
educational contexts is abundant with structures and activities that are marked by
isolation, independence, inattentiveness by other leaders, and lack of consensus
(Alvy & Robbins, 1998; Hartley, 2007). Distributed leadership is a promising
framework that offers a conceptual lens to better understand, unify, and coordinate
leadership efforts in the school context. The performance of leadership activities can
be maximized and become more effective, as they are stretched across organizational
leaders, are more permeable, its components and principles are better understood,
and it becomes anchored in solid and abundant literature.
Distinctive Dimensions of Distributed Leadership Theory
The emergence of distributed leadership has brought about great interest from
scholars in the field of school leadership and with it, inquiry over the novelty and
applicability of the theory and its principles. Elements of distributed leadership have
been analyzed and described by scholars, who have identified important features of
the distributed conceptual framework that make it unique (Gronn, 2000, 2002;
Harris, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Spillane, 2006, 2007; Spillane et al., 2001,
2003). For instance, the types of practice distribution presented by Spillane and his
colleagues (2006), described earlier, illustrate this premise. In reviewing the
literature on distributed leadership, Woods, Bennett, Harvey, and Wise (2004) have
identified three “distinctive elements” specific to the concept of distributed
leadership.
40
Emergent property. As distributed leadership is shaped by the evolving
interactions of various leaders, at different times and under various situations, the
nature of the leadership is emergent; it also has fluidity and plasticity. This makes it
a promising concept, as there is a give and take between leaders, and followers,
defined by their exchanges and heedfulness, capable of producing positive
organizational change. Moreover, distributed roles are not static and are less
hierarchical than in traditional approaches, allowing for more flexible dynamics of
top-down and bottom-up leadership, eventually producing a convergence that
influences both top-down and bottom-up forms of leadership. Central to the
emergent property of distributed leadership is Gronn’s (2002) notion of ‘concertive
action,’ defined by Woods et al. (2004) as “the additional dynamic which is the
product of conjoint activity. Where people work together in such a way that they
pool their initiative and expertise, the outcome is a product or energy which is
greater than the sum of their individual actions” (p. 441).
Openness of boundaries. Central to the concept of a distributed perspective is
the principle that leadership is shared and stretched across various members of the
organization. This characteristic differentiates distributed leadership from other
conventional types, including traditional leadership. It also widens the scope of the
leadership team to include other members of the school community, like teachers,
the focus of this study’s research questions. Woods and others (2004) described that
the model of distributed leadership raises “the question of which groups and
individuals are to be brought into leadership or seen as contributors to it. Of itself,
41
the notion of distributed leadership does not suggest how wide that boundary should
be set. Equally, however, there are no limits built into the concept” (p. 442). These
issues need to be further researched. This dimension complements the emergent
property described above, as the interactions between leaders, followers, and their
situation create interdependence of thinking and actions which allow for fluidity and
change over time; thus, openness of boundaries encourages the leadership team to
adapt to the changes and expand its membership accordingly.
Leadership according to expertise. A distributed leadership framework has a
plasticity built in, associated with the emergent property and openness of boundaries
dimensions mentioned, that calls for the expertise of diverse individuals at various
times. This characteristic makes this framework a viable option in which to anchor
leadership practices, as the knowledge, skills and experiences of the members of the
educational community are spread across a wide range. As expressed by Woods and
colleagues on their review of the literature, “Initiatives may be inaugurated by those
with relevant skills in a particular context, but others will then, within a mutually
trusting and supportive culture, adopt, adapt and improve them” (2004, p. 442).
Teachers, for instance, who have the greatest school influence on student
achievement (Marzano, 2006), can transfer their expertise to others through
leadership practices under a distributed perspective. Effective ways to do this is an
area in need of further research (Elmore, 2000; Hallinger, 2005; Harris, 2004;
Hartley, 2007; Woods et al., 2004).
42
These three dimensions of distributed leadership evolve and transcend into
the school system through the organizational structures and individuals’ actions, or
agency, and thus shape and influence the distribution of leadership. Scholars have
stressed that structure and agency are equally important and are affected by
contextual “pull” and “push” factors (Gronn, 2000; Odura, 2004), which also help
determine how leadership is dispersed. This extends to the components of the theory
presented earlier (a) leaders and followers, (b) situation, and (c) practice. Therefore,
delineating and understanding all aspects of the distributive framework, through
empirical work, is crucial in determining the scope of its effectiveness. This is
especially important in relation to teachers’ motivation, ability and practice, since
“there are some important connections and overlaps between distributed leadership
and teacher leadership” (Harris, 2003, p. 313).
The research on distributive leadership as a conceptual framework is
promising in addressing important aspects of school leadership. Widening the scope
of leadership decision-making by stretching and distributing these functions among
various members of the organization provides autonomy, collegiality, collaboration,
communication, empowerment, involvement, problem solving, and the creation of
opportunities for professional growth (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Moreover, by
distributing the responsibility and control for leadership throughout the organization,
this model has the potential of developing teacher leadership motivation, ability, and
action, being explored in this study. The importance in understanding the
development of teacher leadership cannot be underscored, as it is directly linked to
43
school effectiveness, development, and improvement (Marzano, 2003; Elmore,
2000). In addition, teacher leadership “is a powerful idea because it recognizes that
teachers’ ability to lead has a significant influence upon the quality of relationships
and teaching within the school” (Muijs & Harris, 2003, pp. 444-445). Distributed
leadership encompasses aspects of other popular leadership theories described
earlier, yet it adds its own distinctive and promising elements. Therefore, this
framework is the most appropriate to use in the study of teacher leadership
development.
Team and distributed leadership, both forms of shared leadership paradigms,
have many commonalities as well as differences, described earlier. Table 1 is
presented below to help highlight these characteristics.
Table 1. Comparison of Shared Leadership Models
Team Leadership Distributive Leadership
MODEL COMPONENTS
Organizational Structures
and Processes
Shared team vision
Connection to team’s
needs
Group accountability
Shared school vision
Connection to site’s needs
Group and school-accountability
Leader Behavior Directive leadership
Facilitator
Participative
Leader by expertise
Power Position Shared decision-making
Team leaders
Emergent property
Various formal and informal
school leaders as decision-makers
Leadership stretched across
organization
Shared responsibilities
Internal Team Functions Teamwork
Visioning
Coaching
Solving and identifying
problems
Teamwork
Leadership practice generated
through interactions of leaders,
followers, and their situation
Collaborating
44
Table 1: Continued
Strengths Team-centered leadership
Supportive problem-solving
environment
Collegiality
Empowerment
Development of principal
and teacher leaders
Distribution of expertise
Distribution of leadership
roles
Intellectual stimulation
Empowerment
Collegiality
Criticisms/Limitation Micro-management of
leadership decisions
Decisions made by few staff
members
Leadership teams’ adherence
to status quo
Misperception of
shared/team leadership as
distributed leadership
Understanding of how
leadership is distributed
Thin literature available
Teacher Leadership Roles
Traditionally, teachers have been charged with the main and complex task of
providing for the educational needs of students. Nevertheless, the demands on the
roles and responsibilities of teachers have increased and changed in the last decades.
The publication of the A Nation At Risk report and the advent of the No Child Left
Behind legislation have had a major part in driving this change. Standards-based
instruction, accountability, and a national focus on student improvement are some of
the by-products that have emerged as a result of public demand for more effective
schools and consequently, school restructuring. Foundational to this is the fact that
teachers are the ultimate implementers of reorganization efforts and thus, should
have an influence in the school’s decision-making process. This has brought about
scrutiny of the role of school leaders, and pressure to widen school leadership teams
45
and delegate more decision-making power to teachers. Blasé and Blasé stated, “In
recent years, the restructuring of schools to empower teachers and to implement
school-based shared decision making has resulted in a move away from bureaucratic
control and toward professionalization of teaching” (2000, p. 130).
As teachers’ roles and responsibilities change, it is important and necessary
for this study to obtain a clear and comprehensive grasp of aspects affecting this
change, especially as it relates to how teacher leadership develops. The Institute for
Educational Leadership (IEL) published a report that defines what teacher leadership
encompasses:
Teacher leadership is not about ‘teacher power.’ Rather, it is about
mobilizing the still largely untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen
student performance at ground level and working toward real collaboration, a
locally tailored kind of shared leadership, in the daily life of the school.
(2001, p. 4)
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), mentioned in Chapter
1, produced standards aimed at recognizing the evolving role of the school leader
and the need for collaboration in school matters of leadership. (Council of Chief
State School Officers [CCSSO], 1996). The ISLLC delineates leaders’
responsibilities, all of which spread over the instructional realm and parallel many of
teachers’ functions and responsibilities. For instance, one of the standards declares
that a school leader promotes student success by creating, supporting, and
maintaining a school climate and culture and instructional program that facilitates
46
and promotes student learning (CCSSO, 1996). In order for teachers to become
school leaders and engage in meaningful collaboration, three important components,
(a) motivation, (b) ability, and (c) action, must develop and emerge. Exploring these
components, along with factors that facilitate and inhibit them, provided a more
crystallized perspective on how teacher leadership forms.
Teacher motivation. Motivation, or the inspiration and driving force to do
something, is influenced by many factors. In educational organizations, research has
pointed to collaboration, promotion of teacher responsibility, teacher participation,
shared decision-making, collegiality, and community support as factors that enhance
teacher leadership motivation (Sebring & Camburn, 1992; Smylie, 1993). However,
current school leadership approaches represent a major roadblock for these processes
to emerge and develop. As expressed by IEL, “As long as school leadership remains
mostly top-down and hierarchical, there is little chance that teachers will ever be
more than fringe players—available as a resource when called upon, but seldom
directly and continuously involved in decisions of substance” (2001, p. 9). Thus,
there is a strong need for research-based literature on the development of teacher
motivation. A leadership model with a wider participants’ scope, such as the
distributive perspective, is promising in fostering teacher empowerment,
involvement, collaboration, and decision-making, which lead to higher levels of
motivation.
Teacher ability. The development of teacher leadership capacity is
constrained by the traditional leadership model, where the principal or
47
superintendent makes the majority of the decisions related to curriculum and
instruction. Although representing the area of expertise of educators, their input is
not utilized in organizations implementing a hierarchical and vertical leadership
framework. An effect of this is that the potential leadership ability of teachers is not
utilized and cultivated. As cited in the Institute for Educational Leadership’s report
(2001), Terry (2000) explained:
Principals have always told their subordinates how to act. Teachers have had
little voice in workplace issues such as the choice of curriculum material, the
types of tests used to evaluate instruction, the scheduling of classes, and the
allocation of instructional resources. They lack the structures and processes
present in other professions…A lack of autonomy…affects productivity and
commitment to the workplace and therefore ultimately affects their teaching
capabilities. (p. 7)
The public school system is in need of a leadership model that encourages the
development of leadership ability and skills in teachers and that stretches across the
school organization. To illustrate, an important school aspect that needs to be
expanded and shared between administrators and teachers is instructional
management. An inhibitor of shared instructional management and leadership is
what scholars call “loose coupling,” whereby the individuals that manage a school do
not manage the manner in which its essential functions, teaching and learning, are
completed (Elmore, 2000). This principle hinders the development of teacher ability,
as the management of the organizational structures runs parallel to the “technical
48
core” or foundation, including the agency, run by the teachers; the technical core
includes decisions on content to be taught, form of delivery of instruction, and so on.
All these structures and processes dwell in individual classrooms and seldom
converge with organizational structures, thus functioning loosely coupled (Elmore,
2000).
Instructional leadership can empower teachers and facilitate their acquisition
and utilization of effective leadership ability. Communicating with teachers to
encourage reflection and supporting professional goals, through inquiry, reflective
practice, and exploration promotes teacher ability (Blasé and Blasé, 2000). In order
for this practice to be complete and meaningful, teachers need to be integrated and
share in the organizational decision-making and governance procedure.
Teacher action. The literature on teacher leadership action indicates that in
order to make organizations structurally stronger and promote teacher collaboration,
empowerment, and professional satisfaction, teachers must be cultivated as leaders
(Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Danielson, 2005; Elmore, 2000). Essential to this premise is
the inclusion of teachers in the leadership process by those in formal leadership
positions.
Teacher leadership action is associated with and directly influenced by
formal leadership functions and roles. Although school restructuring efforts in the
last decades have produced some conceptual changes in leadership models that
include the importance of teams in schools, these changes appear to be mostly in
initial stages. Teacher action and participation in leadership decisions, although
49
conceptually embraced by a great number of educators and administrators, have had
major barriers to its implementation and materialization (Harris, 2004). A distributed
perspective brings about a perceived risk to the status of those in formal leadership
positions and consequently, to the status quo of the organization. Structural and
cultural barriers, like a hierarchical model and an established and traditional internal
school structure, impede the development of teacher leadership ability and action.
The sharing, delegation, and distribution of leadership responsibilities, expertise,
roles, and functions in educational organizations is an area of research that is still
thin and in need of further empirical knowledge.
Conclusion
Conceptual frameworks of school leadership have evolved over the last
century as a result of school restructuring efforts and local, state, and federal
regulations and mandates on student achievement and school improvement.
Throughout this development school leadership theories have, at least conceptually,
expanded and attempted to incorporate other elements, conditions, and individuals.
In an effort to effectively accommodate and resolve the increasing demands posed by
complex organizational environments on those in formal leadership positions, a
number of models of school leadership have been adopted throughout the country.
Some of the major models were reviewed in this chapter.
The role and influence of teachers in the education and achievement of
students, the goal of the educational enterprise, is well documented (Elmore, 2000;
Harris, 2004; Marzano, 2003). Research suggests teachers should be part of
50
leadership and points to teachers as being an integral part of schools’ leadership
teams. There is general agreement among scholars and practitioners on the veracity
of this principle, yet it challenges a great barrier, the status quo. As cited in the
Institute for Educational Leadership report (2001), Tyson (1993) stated “The effort
to create a cadre of leaders within the teaching ranks is rhetorically supported by
nearly everybody and actually supported by very few” (p. 3).
Another important limitation and one in need of further research, is the lack
of evidence and knowledge on the development of teacher leadership. A conceptual
model that analyzes and provides insight into the how of the leadership process,
especially in terms of fostering teacher leadership motivation, ability, and action, is
needed. Distributed leadership might be an appropriate perspective. Harris (2005)
explained:
The ascendancy of distributed leadership as a powerful concept and a theory
represents a significant shift in thinking about leaders, leadership, and
leadership development. It not only challenges the mythology of
individualistic leadership but also reclaims leadership for teachers and others
working in schools. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to give this new
leadership perspective greater legitimacy... (¶ 24)
The literature review in this chapter presented popular school leadership
theories, including traditional, instructional, team, and distributed. They were
reviewed and their advantages and limitations described. The trajectory of school
leadership has experienced great growth over the years, yet a tendency to rebound to
51
traditional, top-down, authoritative and hierarchical forms of leadership persists
(Harris, 2004). A leadership framework that effectively bridges the structures,
functions, and processes between the instructional and managerial aspects of school
settings is necessary to address organizational needs. Principals and teachers, key
players in schools, need to become highly qualitative and competent leaders (Datnow
& Castellano, 2001).
The data presented in this review served to shape and frame this research
study, where the development of teacher leadership was explored, and findings
added to the existing school leadership literature. A distributive leadership paradigm
represents a fresh and promising perspective in an area characterized by a shallow
research base and yet, with great need for further understanding. This study
addressed these matters. Data collection tools were used to examine and describe the
roles of teachers, their functions, and their interactions and provided information on
how leadership develops.
52
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design that was used in
the study. The major components included are methodology, sample and population,
data collection, data analysis procedures, ethical considerations and limitations.
These were specifically designed to align with the purpose of this study, which was
to explore the functions, responsibility, and effect of school-level leaders in
promoting and developing leadership ability among teachers through the use of
shared and distributive models of leadership, and whether these resulted in enhanced
instructional leadership ability that generated school improvement. Chapter 3 was
guided by the research question:
Do distributed leadership practices in school systems result in increased
teacher motivation, ability, and action towards leadership (i.e. instructional
leadership or practices)?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were addressed:
1. How are characteristics of a distributive leadership framework exemplified
in the actions of the school?
2. How does the implementation of distributed forms of leadership at the
school level translate into the classroom?
Methodology
This study explored the roles of school-level leaders in promoting leadership
and thus, a qualitative case study research approach was the most adequate. This type
53
of methodology calls for a description of phenomenon observed in the natural
context. Qualitative forms of research, expressed Merriam (1998), “help us
understand and explain the meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption of
the natural setting as possible” (p. 5). Moreover, qualitative methods optimize the
possibility of gathering data with depth, detail, and abundance of information in the
social context observed (Patton, 2002). This was particularly important in this study
where shared forms of leadership in school contexts, and specifically distributive
leadership, were being explored in seeking to gain a deeper and broader
understanding of the how of leadership structures, processes, and relationships at the
local level. Qualitative research was the appropriate type of design for this case, as
insight and understanding of the interactions between school-level leaders, and
possibly their development, was explored through careful, thorough, and deep data
sources. Furthermore, Patton states that qualitative researchers “try to develop a
complex picture of the problem or issue under study. This involves reporting
multiple perspectives, identifying the many factors involved in a situation, and
generally sketching the picture that emerges” (2002, p. 39). Thus, since the object of
the study was to explore an issue or phenomenon involving complex human relations
and interactions, the study called for a qualitative research design.
Regarding the use of a case study as a methodology, this decision was based
on the research questions presented earlier. The qualitative research conditions
proposed for this comprehensive research strategy aligned with the characteristics of
this study: (a) the research questions were directed at “how” and “why” inquiries; (b)
54
the researcher did not manipulate and managed the events; and (c) the study was
concerned with a current phenomenon (Yin, 2003). These circumstances were
optimal for this study, where the goals involved understanding the how of the
leadership process, exploring the interactions between leaders and followers,
studying leadership skills and practices, and understanding current school leadership
reforms through a distributed leadership conceptual framework. Additionally, Yin
(2003) describes two facets of case study methodology that elucidates its purpose
and supported its adoption for this study:
1. A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
2. The case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in
which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and
as a result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to
converge in a triangulation fashion, and as a result benefits from the prior
development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and
analysis (Yin, 2003, p. 13-14).
An important aspect in the utilization of case study as a qualitative research
methodology is the principle that it epitomizes an analysis process, as its goal is to
gather, categorize, and analyze data in a comprehensive manner. This process
evolves into a case study, thus generating a product of analysis (Patton, 2002). This
adds to a qualitative methods approach as “reality is holistic, multidimensional, and
55
ever-changing” (Merriam, 1998, p. 202). Comprehensibly exploring leadership
skills, their evolution and effects, through the use of various sources of information
on the interactions between leaders and followers in school settings requires a case
study qualitative approach. This methodology allows the researcher to investigate
phenomenon within defined boundaries, or bounded systems, as is the case of
specific schools. For this research project, the use of case study was most appropriate
as the schools sites are where principals and teachers interact. Thus, their
relationships, functions, and roles, associated with leadership, were explored in depth
through the compilation of rich, deep, and descriptive data gathered through
observations, interviews, and other appropriate sources of information (Creswell,
2007).
For this study, two cases were used. A combination of detailed description
and interpretation of the observations made provided abundant information for data
analysis. In terms of organizational leadership styles, two distinct cases were utilized
which presented the researcher with different, and sometimes even contrasting,
perspectives while simultaneously enhancing the stability and validity of the study
(Yin, 2003; Merriam, 1998). One of the sites uses a distributed leadership model,
while the other one employs a traditional framework. Creswell (2007) describes a
method commonly implemented when bounded systems are used, “first provide a
detailed description of each case and themes within that case, called a within-case
analysis, followed by a thematic analysis across the cases, called a cross-case
analysis, as well as assertions or an interpretation of the meaning of the case” (p. 75,
56
emphasis in original). Choosing within-case analysis allowed the researcher to gain a
deep understanding of main leadership aspects and themes present at each of two
sites. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted, whereby themes across cases were
compared, contrasted, and analyzed; this process added to the understanding of
distributed forms of school leadership.
Given the purpose of the case analysis, a collective case study was
appropriate (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2003). Coined as purposeful maximal sampling,
two different contexts were included in the study to illustrate diverse angles of
school leadership practices and their impact on teachers’ motivation, ability, and
action towards leadership (2005, in Creswell, 2007). The use of multiple cases has
certain defining features. A central characteristic of case study methodology is
investigating a phenomenon or theory in its natural setting or context. Merriam
explained that, “Anchored in real-life situations, the case study results in a rich and
holistic account of a phenomenon. It offers insights and illuminates meanings …”
(1998, p. 41). The study aimed to explore, describe, interpret, evaluate and
consequently, theorize and add to the understanding of distributed leadership in
school settings. Thus, it is classified as an interpretative collective case study
(Merriam, 1998). Another strength of qualitative case study and essential in this
research, is that it allows for the exploration of a complex social situation or process,
and its development along with the variables that are embedded in the dynamics of
the context(s) and that might have an effect in the process or theory being studied
(Stake, 1994; Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2007).
57
Research Sites
For this study, two sites were selected. As previously presented, within-case
sampling allowed the researcher to investigate and illustrate diverse elements of
leadership that could be described, interpreted, and explained through a distributed
leadership theoretical framework. Given the emphasis of distributed and shared
models of leadership on the interactions, practices, and situations occurring between
leaders and followers in context, careful consideration was given to the choice of
locations that would be part of the research design; a distributed perspective moves
away from the traditional parallelism made between school leadership and
principals’ roles and actions, thus selection of the sites to align with the purpose of
the study was critical. In order to potentially maximize the depth, accuracy, and
interpretation of the data collected, two sites with different leadership styles were
chosen. One of the schools distributes leadership, while the other implements a
traditional model. Thus, these represented information-rich contexts where the
effects on teacher leadership development of two different school models were
observed, interpreted, and compared. When selecting the sites, ten criteria were
considered:
1. Leadership style: K-6 school sites that have purposefully adopted a
distributive leadership framework for at least two years and those managed
through a traditional leadership approach were pre-selected. From this
sample, two sites were identified; one follows a distributed leadership
perspective and one a more traditional approach. These criteria were selected
58
as they shed information on leadership practices in school systems, the basis
of the research question.
2. School size: the schools’ sizes were important in order to give the researcher
an opportunity to gather data in a comprehensive and effective manner, from
as many relevant site sources as possible, and within a specific time
framework. When looking at this component, schools with student body
populations between 300 and 700, and 20 to 30 certificated staff members
were pre-selected. A small to medium context size was appropriate to explore
in depth the actions of the school, which comprised sub-question one.
3. School improvement: schools with demonstrated consistent progress in the
last five years, as evidenced by schools’ API scores. This characteristic
facilitated the researcher to look at practices, interactions, and situations
between leaders and followers in educational institutions experiencing
success. Alongside this, and of great importance in the study, was the
possibility of exploring teacher satisfaction and the potential effects on
instructional leadership ability and action. The two sites selected had a
history of steady progress and robust API scores. These criteria provided
insight into the issue of effects of leadership on instructional practices, the
second sub-question. API scores were also important in the pre-selection
process, as schools that had met the API State goal of 800 evidenced focus on
student achievement and on the instructional process.
59
4. Percentage of minority students: the schools’ total number of minority
students, as evidenced in the disaggregated data provided by the districts’
pupil services office, was an important measurement associated with student
performance and school improvement. Elementary schools with over 33% of
minority students were pre-selected in order to give the researcher an
opportunity to gather data in settings with diverse student populations.
5. Improvement in language arts scores of at least 50% of the minority students
in the schools selected, as measured by the 2006-2007 California Standards
Tests results.
6. Staff members’ involvement and decision-making: in determining the sites
that would comprise the sample, schools where staff members were involved
and had some decision-making opportunities within the organization was
essential. These criteria were selected as they helped shed information and
decipher decision-making and leadership practices, and their effect on school
systems, the core of the research question.
7. Staff members’ experience: participant teachers and school-level leaders
were to have between three and five years of experience working at the site.
This facilitated the researcher’s data collection, interpretation, and
understanding of the leadership development process at the sites. It also
provided relevant data on the schools’ actions, instructional practices, and
teacher leadership, all part of the research questions.
60
8. Information-rich contexts: schools using distributed forms of leadership for at
least two years, were pre-selected as they were an important source of
information and constituted a reliable foundation for data collection.
9. Teacher turnover: elementary schools with low rates of teacher turnover were
included in the selection process, as this criterion is generally associated with
teachers’ professional satisfaction.
10. Accessibility: schools within the researcher’s geographical locale provided an
important opportunity for frequent and comprehensive data collection. This
condition was selected as frequent site visits informed various aspects of the
research questions and added to the knowledge base.
Sample and Participants
To gather in-depth and detailed information, two cases were selected for this
qualitative study (Patton, 2002). The schools were Distributed Elementary School,
part of the West Coast Unified School District (WCUSD), and Traditional
Elementary School, part of Pacific Unified School District (PUSD). The reason for
selecting sites with similar levels of schooling (elementary) responded to an attempt
to gain a better and more accurate understanding of distributive forms of leadership
in school contexts at the lower grade levels; thus, it was important to keep the grade
level variable consistent across cases. Next, descriptions of WCUSD, PUSD, and the
selected sites are presented to further enlighten the sample and component of the
research design.
61
West Coast Unified School District was established in 1885, and it is located
in California. It is comprised of six schools: three elementary, one middle school,
one high school, and a continuation school. With a total student population of nearly
4,000, the district staff takes pride in the school community’s high academic
standards and expectations, parental support, and involvement. Moreover, WCUSD
students consistently achieve among the top 20% of all the State’s students. With
robust California Standards Test (CST) scores across the district, West Coast’s
Academic Performance Index for the 2006-2007 school year was 915 (West Coast
Unified School District [WCUSD] website, 2008). WCUSD is a forward-looking
organization, led by a superintendent that assertively promotes and encourages team
work among leaders, in formal and informal positions, at all levels.
Distributed Elementary serves grades kindergarten through sixth, and has
approximately 630 students, of which 47% are males and 53% females. The student
body population is diverse, with racial and ethnic subgroups that comprise 2%
African American, 8 % Hispanic, 33% Asian, and 57% White. More than 62% of the
students come from middle to middle-high socio-economic levels. 3% percent of the
students receive reduced or free lunch. The school has a total of 29 teachers. Of
these, 69% are fully credentialed, 29% have a preliminary credential, and 2% hold
emergency permits. Although the majority of the teachers have at least six years of
teaching experience within the public school system, 31% of them have taught four
years of less. 13% of the teachers are males, and 87% females. The ethnicity of the
teaching staff includes 2% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 94% White. A high performing
62
school, Distributed’s 2006 Academic Performance Index was 947, which represents
a 10-point increase from the previous year (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2007a).
Pacific Unified School District, established in 1908, is also located in
California. It is comprised of 17 schools: 11 elementary, 3 middle schools, 2 high
schools, and a continuation high school. With a diverse population of approximately
16,000 students, the district staff takes pride in the students’ academic improvement
and involvement, the cultural richness of the community, and the parental
participation in school events. Pacific’s California Standards Test (CST) scores have
shown growth in the last five years. The District’s Academic Performance Index for
the 2006-2007 school year was 787, which represents an increase from the previous
year’s score, 782 (Pacific Unified School District [PUSD] website, 2008). PUSD is
led by a superintendent that adheres to a traditional leadership model.
Traditional Elementary serves grades kindergarten through sixth, and has a
student population of approximately 761. The student body is diverse, with racial
and ethnic subgroups that include 0.0% American Indian, 2.9% African American,
4.2% Filipino, 23.4% Hispanic, 6.7%, Asian, 59.4% White, and 3.4% Multiple.
More than 50% of the students are from a middle socio-economic level. 11.2%
percent of the students participate in the free and reduced lunch program. The school
has a total of 28 teachers. Of these, 97.5% are fully credentialed and 2.5% hold
emergency permits. The majority of the teachers (over 82%) have at least four years
of teaching experience within the public school system. 22% of the teachers are
63
males, and 78% females. Traditional’s 2006 Academic Performance Index was 820,
which represents a 13-point increase from the previous year (California Department
of Education [CDE], 2007c).
Using the criteria mentioned earlier for site selection, 10 participants at each
of the elementary schools formed part of the sample. The rationale for the number of
participants was grounded on the relevance of having representatives that stretched
throughout the selected contexts, thus providing information-rich opportunities for
data collection; this also allowed the researcher to observe leadership practices and
interactions among various stakeholders, school activities, and practices. The
participants included eight classroom teachers, the principal, and a support services
certificated professional; one of the eight teachers was a Team Leaders or Leadership
Team Committee member. Regarding agreement to participate, the teachers in
leadership teams volunteered to be a part of the study, even though that position
takes two to four additional hours each week. The total number of participants in the
study was 20.
In order to recruit the sample members the researcher, after receiving
authorization from the Instructional Review Board (IRB), met with the instructional
leadership team at each of the sites to discuss the study and asked for permission to
invite participants. The researcher asked the principals for a time slot, during a staff
meeting at the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, when it was appropriate for a
slide presentation to be delivered to staff members. Upon consent and after the
presentation, the researcher was able to recruit the 20 participants.
64
Data Collection Procedures
Several data collection instruments were used in this study, including
observations, interviews, a survey, and document review. Using a qualitative
approach allowed the researcher to come in close contact with the individuals,
situations, and phenomenon being explored (Patton, 2002). This was critical in this
study, where the researcher sought to investigate leadership practices and their
effects through a distributive perspective lens in school contexts. Given the
complexity embedded in human interactions and practices, foundational in this
study, data triangulation was essential. Triangulation entails using several and
diverse methods and sources purported to generate supporting evidence with the goal
of gaining information on a theme or point of view (Creswell 2007). However,
Patton (2002) explains that “Different kinds of data may yield somewhat different
results because different types of inquiry are sensitive to different real-world
nuances. Thus, understanding inconsistencies in findings across different kinds of
data can be illuminative” (p. 248). A description of the research instruments and
corresponding data collection process is presented next.
Observations
The focus of the observations, guided by the purpose of the study through a
protocol (Appendix A), centered on the leadership routines, and how these related to
teaching and learning. Spillane (2006) recommends “Comparing and contrasting
followers’ and leaders’ interactions across different routines and across the same
routine in different school subjects …” and also observing “… how followers’
65
participation in a leadership routine contributes to defining leadership practice” (p.
92). During the observations the researcher, as an observer, took field notes,
recorded, and later transcribed conversations and discussions. The considerations
described above facilitated the use of observation as a research tool as it was: (a)
aligned with the research purpose; (b) methodically recorded; (c) carefully planned;
and (d) subjected to scrutiny on reliability (Merriam, 1998).
Ten observations were conducted at each of the two elementary sites
selected, in a time frame expanding from the end of August until December 2008.
First, two 30 to 45-minute observations took place. The initial observation was of the
first staff meeting in the school year. The agenda, overview of the instructional plan
for the year, and content of the meeting was of particular interest to the researcher, in
terms of curriculum and instruction decision-making issues, communication, staff
members’ formal and informal leadership roles, and instructional and leadership
committees’ selection of staff members for the school year. The second observation
was of a language arts or math meeting. Observation of meetings in these core
subjects had been pre-selected as they receive broad attention by the school’s and
district’s leadership teams; also, performance in these subjects and consequently,
school improvement, can be evidenced in yearly California Standards Tests results.
Then, sets of 15 to 20-minute observations in classrooms and grade-level meetings
were conducted at each of the sites selected; given the scope of grades per site, eight
observations took place at each of the elementary schools. Observation of grade-
66
level meetings allowed the researcher to explore the connection between grade level
representatives’ interactions and the distribution of leadership.
Interviews
Interviews provided another important data collection method in this study. A
protocol designed to explore components of the research questions was used to guide
the interview process, and was comprised of ten main questions, some of which had
sub-questions (Appendix B). Through the interview process, the investigator sat with
the participants and collected information on how leadership is distributed
throughout the schools’ practices, how this influences teachers’ motivation, ability,
and action towards leadership, and how the sites’ instructional processes are affected
by leadership styles. Ten teachers and administrators were interviewed at Distributed
Elementary and ten at Traditional Elementary; a support provider at each site was
included. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed, were conducted on a
one-on-one basis, required previous approval by the interviewee, lasted 30 to 45
minutes each, and took place at a mutually convenient and agreed upon time and
location. The interviews were conducted after each of the interviewees had been
observed. Information collected through side comments triggered by interview
questions formed part of the data and, when appropriate, was used to expand on and
complement the interview process. For instance, when asked about current
instructional decision-making at the site, a teacher provided an answer and then
added her perceptions on leadership routines and how these differed under the
previous principal. Therefore, a semi-structured interview approach was appropriate.
67
Its value in a qualitative study is described by Merriam as “ … the largest part of the
interview is guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored … This format
allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview
of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (1998, p. 74).
Surveys
A survey, exploring perceptions on leadership and management opportunities
in the school and at the district-level was given to teachers and administrators. This
instrument was included in the study for two reasons. First, it added on to the
information gathered through the observations and interviews by augmenting,
corroborating, or contradicting it. Second, the surveys were filled out anonymously,
thus facilitating the sharing of information by participants on school leadership
practices in an authentic manner. Moreover, the survey provided insight into the
main research question, functioning as a lens into the sites’ leadership practices,
interactions, and situations, and the effects on teacher motivation, ability, and action
towards leadership. The participants were self-selected and the surveys were
delivered at a staff meeting in the fall. Comprised of three parts, the survey included
multiple-choice questions on demographic background and on participants’
perceptions of various stakeholders and groups’ influence on managerial and
leadership decisions, and three open-ended questions regarding incentives, support,
and barriers for instructional leadership opportunities (Appendix C). Blasé and Blasé
(1999) explained that, “An open-ended questionnaire is a useful personal document
for qualitative research that focuses on the subjective perceptions of people” (p.
68
355). Moreover, information gathered through free-response questionnaires may
deliberately or inadvertently provide information about the structure, interactions,
and practices present in the participant’s professional context (Blasé & Blasé, 1999;
Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002).
Document review
Strategic plan documents, school improvement blueprints, site master plans,
school master schedules, Team Leaders and Leadership Team committee’s agendas,
staff meeting agendas, teacher produced writing rubrics, pacing guides, assessment
maps, teacher generated report cards, and School Accountability Report Cards
(SARC) were all be reviewed and analyzed. The information gathered through these
documents was important as it helped the researcher induce aspects of leadership
practices and instructional decisions weaved throughout these papers.
Data Analysis Procedures
Analysis followed the data collection phase. A complex process, Creswell
(2007) describes a common data analysis approach used in qualitative inquiry that
involves “preparing and organizing the data for analysis, then reducing the data into
themes through a process of coding and condensing the codes, and finally
representing the data in figures, tables, or a discussion” (p. 148). The conceptual
framework of distributed leadership, presented in Chapter Two as part of the
literature review, was used as a foundation for the themes, as the study aimed to add
to the existing literature on this theory. A coding system was developed through an
69
exhaustive process whereby the data was summarized into significant components,
names or codes were assigned to them, and these were then combined into themes
(Creswell, 2007).
The information gathered through the various instruments and procedures
was carefully organized, analyzed, categorized, and eventually interpreted according
to themes generated. This process was applied to the field notes gathered through the
observations, the transcripts of the interview tapes, the results of the survey, and the
document review notes. After the researcher had exhaustive interaction with the data
and consequently developed a profound understanding of its meaning, interpretation
of the emerging themes then allowed for a clearer understanding of distributed
perspectives of leadership in school contexts.
Trustworthiness
Research scholars address the significance of trustworthiness in their
literature (Stake, 1994; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003; Creswell, 2007) and
describe the importance of designing qualitative studies that clearly and specifically
address reliability and validity. Merriam stated that “regardless of the type of
research, validity and reliability are concerns that can be approached through careful
attention to a study’s conceptualization and the way in which the data were collected,
analyzed, and interpreted, and the way in which the findings are presented” (1998, p.
199-200). Several procedures were implemented to establish reliability and validity,
thus enhancing trustworthiness. The researcher worked to obtain dependable,
optimal, and unbiased representation of the data throughout the study.
70
The research study was designed to address validity in several ways. First,
school leadership literature and more specifically, a conceptual framework of
distributed leadership, had been reviewed and used for the research questions and
data collection procedures. Furthermore, the themes deduced from the review were
used when analyzing the data; also, emerging themes were incorporated in the
analysis. Several validation processes were utilized in order to enhance the
trustworthiness and validity of the study’s data, including: (a) triangulation; (b)
complementary coding tasks; and (c) reflexivity.
Triangulation was part of the study, as several and different methods and
sources of data collection were be used, aimed at generating relevant evidence that
allowed the researcher to acquire information on leadership perspectives in schools.
Also critical was the fact that the multiple sources of data may have had, to some
extent, generated different results (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2007). Triangulation then,
had the potential to support, fortify, and expand the themes; it also had the potential
of “weakening” them. In the course of the case study, the researcher observed staff
meetings, grade level meetings, and classroom instruction; conducted interviews
with staff members, including both leaders and followers; administered surveys to
staff members; made exhaustive field notes; and reviewed relevant documents.
Second, complementary coding activities were used, whereby the data was
analyzed following a bifurcate, yet comprehensive format. Initially, the data was
examined using themes construed from the distributed leadership literature. Later on,
emergent categories on distributed and shared perspectives were added to gain depth
71
and enhance meaning and understanding to the analysis and data interpretation
phases of the research (Merriam, 1998). As a result of this process, a clear
connection was maintained between the purpose, research questions, theory, data,
and findings that further solidified the validity of the study.
Through reflexivity, a third method that adds reliability, the researcher
engaged in on-going self-reflection, self-inquiry, and self-understanding to become
aware of personal biases, interests, and points of views that might have contaminated
the data collection and analysis processes (Merriam, 1998). The professional
background of the researcher made this step critical, as years in the field of education
inevitably provided an experiential base that has led to the formation of some
evaluative opinions along the way. Reflexivity, then, prepared and facilitated the
investigator’s ability to attend to others’ perspectives and voices, while suppressing
her own (Creswell, 2007).
A prospective limitation of a qualitative case study approach involves the role
of the researcher as the main instrument for gathering the data and therefore,
interpreting it. To enhance the strength of this methodology and decrease its potential
weakness, the investigator engaged in self-reflection, described earlier. Thus, the
researcher underwent through a process of on-going reflexivity, until ownership of
self-perspectives was mastered. This practice prepared the investigator to attend to
others’ perceptions and voices (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, the researcher was
very sensitive, aware, and “open” during the data collection phase, gathering all
aspects of the situations and individuals being observed, attending to details as well
72
as to the whole picture, to the foreground as well as the background, to the formal
and informal leaders, to the followers, and the interactions among them. Another
aspect worth clarifying in this collective case study is that analysis results generated
at each of the sites produced themes, which were then used to conduct a cross-case
analysis, mentioned earlier. However, the results of these stages of analysis are not
generalizations across cases (Yin, 2003), but rather lenses through which to obtain a
deeper and clearer understanding of the contexts and as a result, of distributed forms
of leadership as a conceptual framework.
Ethical Considerations and Limitations of the Study
Professional ethical standards permeated all aspects of this research study.
The participants were informed of their rights, their ability to withdraw from the
study at any point they deemed necessary, and the protection of confidentiality in the
information they provided. The procedures of the study were guided by the
regulations delineated by the Institutional Review Board of the University of
Southern California. Participants were self-selected and signed a consent form prior
to data collection. At the end of the study, the participating members had access to
the results. Regarding the researcher, a strong effort was made to consistently help
check biases, keep opinions from tainting results, and ensure valid and reliable
results.
A limitation of the study could have been the sample size of the staff
members that were to be interviewed and observed. The researcher was able to get
20 participants from the two pre-selected sites to take part of the study. Additionally,
73
the researcher was expecting to be able to collect data from one distributed
leadership pilot site in the east coast guided by scholars in the field, but this was not
possible.
74
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter looks at the data gathered with a focus on the development
of teacher leadership. First, it begins with a general overview of the culture and
leadership models at the two school sites selected as case studies, Distributed
Elementary and Traditional Elementary, thus providing a background for the data
collected. School leadership practices and their effect on teacher motivation, ability,
and action are analyzed here through the processes associated with curriculum,
instruction, and management at the sites. The study findings are presented using the
following categories: teacher leadership, instruction, curriculum, and management.
Results indicate that at the distributed site, teachers experienced increased
motivation, ability, and actions that facilitated the development of their leadership
skills. These characteristics transferred into the classroom environments and were
evidenced in the teachers’ instructional designs and program implementation through
enhanced creativity, empowerment, collaboration, use of expertise and collaborative
working groups.
Description of School Cultures
Distributed Leadership Elementary
School setting. Distributed Elementary is a K-6 school, located in a small
California city, serving 630 students mostly from middle and upper middle
socioeconomic classes. The school, which has been in operation for nearly 60 years,
has always been a source of pride for its stakeholders and community members due
75
to strong academic performance, parental involvement, and collegiality among its
employees. There is little mobility in student population at Distributed, which
facilitates tracking students’ achievement and academic performance longitudinally.
The three main pupil ethnic groups represented at Distributed are Caucasian, Asian,
and Hispanic; near 40% of the students are from a minority group. The school has
been able to keep class size reduction, at 20 to 1, since the State’s program
implementation in 1996 for grades K-3. In terms of academic performance, as
measured yearly through the 2007-2008 California Standards Tests, over 75% of the
students met the State target of achieving at Proficient or Advanced levels in
English-Language Arts and Math.
Historically, the school has experienced fluctuations in the size of its student
body. For instance, enrollment was over 850 in the late 1980s, and down to 630
students for the 2008 – 2009 school year. Distributed has always had the highest
percentage of students from diverse backgrounds in the district, and the achievement
of minority students is carefully monitored by the site and district administrators.
Curiously, although the number of diverse students has increased in the last decades,
the number of English-language learners has decreased.
The culture at Distributed Elementary is characterized by collaboration and
collegiality, as evidenced by multiple observations, conversations with staff
members, teachers and principal interviews, analysis of documents generated at the
site, survey responses, and hallway conversations. There is a positive atmosphere in
the environment, where students, staff members and parents are observed frequently
76
greeting and conversing in various school areas and outside the classrooms. For
instance, on three different occasions, when the researcher arrived in the morning for
data collection, the principal was observed receiving hugs and chatting with several
students who were getting off a small school bus. Another aspect of the culture
perceived by the researcher was open communication and an informal leadership
style.
High expectations for students and staff are evidenced throughout the school
setting. In the main office, there is a display with recognitions and achievements of
Distributed students, including: county spelling bee champions; newspaper articles
written by the students; percentage of pupils meeting monthly established grade-
level targets in math, science, and language arts by grade level; and readers’ names
in the “thousand pages” club (for reading that number of pages or more).
Expectations for staff members are highlighted in the monthly grade-level meetings
with the principal, through review of students’ performance and progress in the
anchor assessments. These common measures of achievement provide a direct,
evidence-based accountability vehicle. At these meetings, there is discussion on
general performance by standards, classrooms, students, and subject matter. This
provides a forum for the teachers, and principal, to collaborate and instructionally
support each other in areas of need, and share effective lessons and teaching
methodology that has worked with specific content.
Another characteristic of Distributed’s context is teacher stability. Teachers
at the site stay there for a long time. For example, 80% of the teachers that were
77
hired in 1996 as a result of class-size reduction are still at the school 12 years later.
Many of these teachers grew in the area and went through the school system.
Leadership style and model. The principal at Distributed has been in that role since
1999; she has been a school principal for 25 years. The district’s management team,
including Distributed’s principal, works closely with the district’s superintendent,
who is also the assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction. Curriculum
and instruction are, therefore, essential aspects in the district’s weekly agendas and
planning. The superintendent is always looking for programs, philosophies, and
models to help improve student learning and move the schools ahead. As a result, the
schools have been immersed in models and programs like professional learning
communities and Every Student Succeeds, and in piloting the redesign of some
leadership roles at the sites. The District superintendent adopted the school model of
distributed leadership to pilot at one of the elementary schools. He chose Distributed
Elementary as the site and has been behind it since its implementation. When he
initially approached the principal to dialogue with her about adopting the framework,
the principal was very interested and receptive to the idea. The summer before
putting the framework into practice, the principal and two teachers who volunteered,
attended a seminar in the Midwest led by a distributed leadership scholar. Starting in
the 2005-2006 school year, Distributed adopted a distributive leadership framework
and thus parted from the more traditional leadership approach still used at the other
elementary schools in the district. The results have been encouraging, with staff
members dialoguing and redefining their traditional teaching and leadership roles,
78
and student achievement continuing to rise. These results will be introduced later, in
the findings section of the chapter.
Traditional Leadership Elementary
School setting. The second case study site selected was Traditional
Elementary School. With a student population of 540 in grades K-6, the school is
located in a middle and upper middle socioeconomic neighborhood in a small city in
California. Established in 1932, Traditional is characterized by minimal student
mobility. This helps follow student progress over time, as well as track and analyze
achievement results of program and policies mandated by the state and the district,
and implemented at the site. The main student ethnic groups at Traditional are
Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic; 41% of the student body is part of a minority group.
Since 1996, the student to teacher ratio in kindergarten through third grade has been
20 to 1. Academic performance, as measured through yearly results on the California
Standards Tests, has shown steady improvement for the last five years; 2007-2008
results reveal that over 64% of the students at Traditional met the State Proficiency
level in English-Language Arts and Math.
The student population at the site has shown steady increase during the last
20 years, as the area where Traditional Elementary is located has experienced a shift
in its demographics. Additionally, the number of English-language learners has also
experienced a slight growth over the past few years. However, the principal
commented that this change has not been noted to be statistically significant.
79
Entering Traditional Elementary instills an atmosphere of professionalism.
The main office is well organized, clean, and bright, and two office managers greet
guests and ask the purpose of their visit. Signing in and out at the main office and
wearing a visitor’s badge while on campus are strictly enforced. The principal keeps
her office door open, but her secretary announces visitors or makes appointments to
talk to the principal. The culture at Traditional, as evidenced by hallway dialogues,
interviews, observations of grade level meetings and classroom instruction, survey
responses, and conversations with staff members, is conventional and cordial. Roles
are clearly defined and there is a visible “pecking order.” Teachers are in charge of
the learning, achievement, and performance of the students in their classrooms,
under the direction and vigilance of the principal. The learning environment at
Traditional reminds the researcher of a compartmentalized organization where
everybody has a specific, assigned job, and works hard to meet educational goals; the
pace is fast, and there is little professional crossover.
Traditional Elementary students have historically performed well
academically, as evidenced through state standards measurements. Expectations are
high and they are made clear to all staff members. Students must meet or exceed
State targets for achievement, represented by an Academic Performance Index (API)
of 800 or above. The content standards must be used to guide instruction, and
students who are consistently not mastering the subject matter are to be identified for
an intervention program. Traditional’s context is surrounded by signs of high
expectations and professionalism: a California Distinguished School sign on the
80
main entrance, reading awards with students’ names in the main office, trophies for
local “Math-A-Thon” champions, and student compositions displayed in hallways
throughout the school. Expectations for teachers are clearly delineated by the
principal during Leadership Team meetings, which center on curriculum.
Leadership style and model. Traditional Elementary has had the same
principal for the last five years. Previous to her current position, she was an assistant
principal, resource specialist, classroom teacher, and new teacher mentor at the same
district for 12 years. At the central office level, the superintendent has held the same
position for over 15 years, and he believes in and supports the traditional school
leadership model. When he was hired as a superintendent, he continued facilitating
the existing traditional framework. The hierarchical, top-down style used by the
superintendent has experienced slight changes over the years, as leadership situations
are now shared by the formal administrators. The district’s management team meets
weekly, and is led by the superintendent and directors of instructional services and
curriculum and instruction. The focus of the group is advancing student achievement
through strong leadership and vision, and a traditional leadership approach is
embraced throughout the organization. Consequently, Traditional Elementary, like
other district’s schools, has adopted an array of academic intervention programs over
the last few years chosen by the management team with the ultimate goal of helping
students meet Proficiency levels. Students at this School have shown growth over the
past few years and teachers are observed following the principal’s curricular and
instructional directives.
81
Next, I will present the data findings classified according to teacher
leadership, instruction, curriculum, and management.
Study Findings
Table 2. Comparison of Findings by Site
Distributed Elementary Traditional Elementary
MAJOR THEMES
Teacher
Leadership
1. Teacher empowerment
2. Motivation to take on new and
emerging leadership roles
3. Ability to lead in various areas
4. Teachers perceived as
knowledgeable by colleagues
5. Teachers as formal/informal
leaders and followers
6. Teacher leadership development
7. Participation in instruction,
management, and curriculum
decision-making and leadership
activities
8. School structures that foster
teacher leadership
1. Teacher’s motivation and
empowerment not part of
school culture
2. Teacher leadership in
formal positions only
3. Expertise and ability not
tied to emerging leadership
roles
4. Teachers perceived as
knowledgeable by colleagues
5. Minimal decision-making
opportunities in curriculum,
management, and
instructional leadership
6. Lack of school structures
that foster leadership
Instruction 1. Instructional creativity in the
classroom
2. Many options in the planning,
design, and delivery of instruction
3. Teachers encouraged to use
expertise in instructional design
4. Instruction affected by state
mandates, assessment, and
accountability
5. Time to plan and collaborate part
of school culture
6. Instructional autonomy
7. Students’ needs guide instruction
8. High standards for student
achievement
1. Instruction strictly follows
state standards
2. Instruction affected by
state mandates, assessment,
and accountability
3. Instructional program
decisions guided/led by
administrators’ directives and
state standards
4. Limited instructional
leadership
5. Time to plan and
collaborate is a constraint
6. High standards for student
achievement
82
Table 2: Continued
Curriculum 1. Limited curriculum leadership
opportunities
2. Main decisions made by
administrators
3. Teachers invited to textbook
adoption meetings
4. Teachers able to mold and shape
the curriculum in their classrooms
5. Teachers are part of new
curriculum’s power standards
development
6. Time to develop/manage
curricula part of school structure
7. Standards-driven curriculum
1. Very limited curriculum
leadership opportunities
2. Teachers invited to
textbook adoption meetings
3. All curriculum decisions
made by administrators
4. Teachers asked to use state
standards as curricular road
map”
5. Standards and test-driven
curriculum
Management 1. Teamwork characterizes
management decisions
2. Collaborated, collective, and
individual management decision-
making actions and practices
3. Top-down and bottom-up
management decisions and
practices; some convergence of
these two styles
4. Development of teacher
leadership, empowerment, and
confidence through abundant
curriculum and instruction
management decision-making
opportunities
1. Curricular management
decisions made by
administrators
2. Teachers have some
instructional management
decisions
3. Site characterized by a top
down management approach
4. Limited opportunities for
teachers to develop
leadership and expertise in
management
1. Teacher Leadership
Teacher leadership is used here to organize the findings, as it was a major
theme in the study and comprised the main research question, aimed at exploring if
distributed leadership practices in schools have a positive impact on teacher
motivation, ability, and action towards leadership.
83
Distributed Leadership Elementary
Individual motivation, confidence and empowerment. At Distributed, data
findings indicate that teacher leadership is emerging and with it, a sense of teacher
empowerment. This is captured in the following comment made by a lower grade
teacher:
Several [leadership] opportunities are presented and encouraged for teachers
to become a part of. I feel that more and more, teachers’ opinions are being
sought out, and valued by administration. We are fortunate to have a
supportive principal and superintendent who cheer on both administrators and
teachers. (Survey transcript, November, 2008)
Observations of staff and Team Leaders meetings demonstrate that teachers
at this site are motivated to take on new and emerging leadership roles. For instance,
at the first staff meeting of the school year in August, three teachers shared that they
voluntarily attended a workshop aimed to help new students network with classmates
and transition into the school successfully. They invited all interested teachers to be
part of this group and 75% of the staff members volunteered. Through an informal
conversation, the researcher followed up on the development of this program two
months later with one of the teachers, and it was reported that the program was going
well and had Distributed Elementary’s staff support.
Teacher motivation is further fostered and promoted by the formal leaders,
including the district’s superintendent. During his visit to Distributed’s first staff
meeting, the superintendent talked to teachers about their positive impact on student
achievement and testing results, and shared his personal message for this school
84
year, which was about the meaning of teachers and the significance of teachers on
students’ lives.
Some of the teachers interviewed conveyed professional confidence,
motivation, and readiness to lead when asked about their role in curriculum and
instruction. An upper grade teacher wrote, “Teachers in the school are interested in
being leaders in curriculum, instruction, and management. That has to happen. The
principal cannot be the sole leader. We are experts in some of these issues, so she
[principal] lets us lead” (Survey transcript, November, 2008).
The data collected evidences that Distributed Elementary has a structure in
place that fosters and reinforces teacher motivation, confidence, and empowerment.
Ability and knowledge to lead. The ability to lead comes with professional
expertise as well as from the existence of the school structures for this skill to
develop. Teacher expertise was perceived by the researcher throughout various
classroom observations. Supporting this finding, a mentor teacher expressed, “I think
we have, really, most of our teachers, if not all of them, have the ability for
leadership and some leadership capacity. It may not always be heading a committee,
or being a mentor, but I think somebody that can share their professional experience
is a leader and we all have that experience” (Teacher, personal communication,
September 10, 2008).
Distributed Elementary teachers are perceived by colleagues as having
knowledge in the areas of curriculum and management, as evidenced by the survey
information presented in table 2 below. The majority of the teachers participating in
85
the survey (15/22) selected the choices “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree,” when
asked if teachers in the school were regarded as knowledgeable in the areas of
curriculum and management. Teachers have the capacity, skills and training to be
leaders in their professional field.
Table 3. Teachers in the School Are Regarded As Knowledgeable in the Areas of
Curriculum and Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
1
5
2
8
3-4 grades
1
0
0
2
1
4
5-6 grades
0
2
2
2
1
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
total
1
3
3
10
5
22
Distributed teachers seek out knowledge that allows them to fluctuate in their
roles as leaders and followers and, many times, emerge in new leadership roles in
certain curricular areas. Two of the teachers at the school have become experts in
helping struggling readers acquire fluency and vocabulary skills by using a new
reading program in their classrooms to complement the school-adopted reading
series. With the support of the principal and their grade-level colleagues, these
teachers developed oral reading fluency and vocabulary benchmarks for the grades
they teach, first and second. When asked about this experience, one of the teachers
stated:
86
You know, there are always kids in your class who cannot read, are too slow
figuring out the words, or don’t know what they are reading about so reading
becomes a struggle for them. Reflecting on this and talking to [other teacher]
about it, we came up with the idea. The principal let us do it after she
reviewed the curriculum with us. It has worked really well and the kids are
blossoming. It’s pretty cool. (Teacher, personal communication, September
15, 2008)
The findings demonstrate that Distributed Elementary teachers have freedom
to use their expertise and knowledge to emerge as leaders in curriculum and
instruction.
Outcomes of teacher actions. Teachers take initiative and are active in the
school processes and results are evident across the organization. Moreover, teachers
see the connection between these actions and their effect on student performance.
For instance, more that 50% of the teachers that participated in the survey agreed
with the statement, “Student achievement in the school is strong because of our
involvement in the decision-making process regarding curriculum, instruction, and
management.”
The presence of these staff activities also point out to a broadening of the
leadership boundaries at Distributed as they stretch across a variety of members at
the school, allowing for leadership to emerge. While observing at a Team Leaders
meeting, the researcher heard the upper grade level representative report:
My team wants to choose a tech expert at each grade level to help us integrate
the textbooks’ CDs and other electronic resources with the Mimio
technology. Our goal is to make our instruction more interactive and hands-
on. We thought about getting a half-day sub once a month to release the tech
experts to do this. How can we go about trying this for some time?
(Observation transcript, September 16, 2008)
87
The principal and other team members agreed that it was a good idea and proposed
writing the plan out and looking into its cost and duration.
Along with the previous finding, the data also indicates that at Distributed,
teachers frequently and actively seek to be an integral part of the processes related to
instruction and curriculum. As part of those processes, teachers take initiative to
create changes they see necessary to help students achieve. During a Team Leaders’
meeting, the researcher saw the lower grade teacher representatives propose a
literacy intervention to the principal and the rest of the team members present. In
their presentation, it was evident that these teachers had researched at length the
program they were proposing, had discussed it with their grade level colleagues, and
had connected this particular program’s benefits to the needs of their current
students. The adoption of the literacy program was approved two weeks later.
At this site, teachers take part of leadership practices associated with
instruction, curriculum, and management, which are part of the organizational
structures at Distributed Elementary. An effect of these activities is teacher
leadership development.
Site decision-making opportunities. Indications of decision making
opportunities for teachers were found at Distributed. Various staff members shared
the existence of a give and take between leaders and followers, as decisions and
leadership opportunities surface at the school. For instance, the principal noted:
I think that it is incumbent upon the administrator to make sure that she is
saying, “Alright, we are going to make a decision. Here’s the issue. So tell
me what the downfalls and the upside is, and so on,” and then, at the end, say,
“Okay, what is our decision?” “What are we going to recommend about
88
this?” so that people are really aware that they are involved in and a part of
leading and making decisions here [Distributed Elementary]. (Principal,
personal communication, October 15, 2008)
Furthermore, decision making practices in management, curriculum, and
instruction at Distributed facilitates widening leadership boundaries by giving access
to a greater number of individuals, as indicated by the data. When asked about
efforts made by the school to allow teachers to lead curriculum, instruction, and
management, one teacher shared, “We are given many opportunities to join
decision-making committees on textbook adoption and instruction. We are
encouraged to voice our opinions” (Survey transcripts, November 2008).
Collaboration and interactions among leaders and followers. Staff members
were observed collaborating in both formal and informal settings. Teachers at
Distributed hold weekly grade-level planning meetings and there is a daily thirty-
minute period to collaborate with same level colleagues. Teachers regularly attend
bimonthly staff meetings. Occasionally, they work together on pilot projects,
textbook adoption meetings, vertical lesson planning meetings, and so on, but the
time to work in partnership and interact with cross level peers is limited. The
researcher observed on-going collaboration, cooperation, and interactions at the site.
When asked about student achievement and collaboration a teacher expressed,
“There is a lot of sharing of experiences by the staff members and I think that helps
others to gain experience and ideas that can help and affect their students with better
achievement and with better instructional delivery” (Teacher, personal
communication, September 10, 2008). These interactions also stretch over decisions
89
regarding the most effective ways to deliver the curriculum, as noted by an upper
grade teacher who said that “There’s a lot of sharing about ways to facilitate
curriculum during instruction, especially by older teachers, or more experienced
teachers helping younger teachers to do that. That’s something that is teacher-driven
and on an informal basis often” (Teacher, personal communication, November 15,
2008).
The staff interactions in routines and leadership practices at Distributed are
observed as co-performed. When working in groups, team members collaborate to
achieve a common goal. The teachers and site administrator also guide, influence,
and mobilize others through actions, communication, trust, and collegiality At a
lower grade level meeting, the researcher observed formal and informal leaders
working together to choose appropriate anchor assessments for the students at their
grade levels. The goal was to select the proper informal assessment measures and
there were differing points of view on what would be best. Guided by the principal,
counselor, team leader, and support services provider, the team collaborated for two
days until they agreed on their anchor assessments measures.
Distributed Elementary teachers interact and exchange ideas and practices
with various leaders, depending on the situation and subject matter. One team leader
teacher said, “I collaborate with the teachers from the previous grade levels”
(Teacher, personal communication, September 26, 2008) while another one stated,
“We interact at staff meetings, we interact at grade level meetings and the interaction
90
may deal with curriculum or may deal with handling behavioral and classroom
management issues within our grade level meetings” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 17, 2008).
Emerging leadership opportunities. The teachers and administrator at
Distributed express interest in using staff expertise to lead across the organization.
When asked about leadership opportunities at the site, a teacher responded:
I think that the [site] does provide good leadership opportunities. For
example, I just taught an Open Court reading program orientation for the new
teachers in the district. I was in charge of planning a half day training for
those teachers who are not familiar with or haven’t use Open Court before.
So that was definitively a leadership opportunity for me. (Teacher, personal
communication, October 29, 2008)
Data findings also indicate emerging leadership opportunities as evidenced
by teachers at the school taking on new positions including Team Leader,
administrator designee, technology mentor, grade level representative, case manager,
reading intervention specialist, new teacher mentor, and so on. At a staff meeting in
the fall, it was noted that the site administrator seems to cultivate and support
emerging leaders. After explaining the purpose of vertical lesson planning, she asked
the teachers to reflect on how they wanted to go about cross level teaching in the
next couple of months. Committees were formed, with formal and informal leaders
designing and making decisions about the process.
Traditional Leadership Elementary
Individual motivation, confidence and empowerment. Data collected at
Traditional Elementary indicates that teacher leadership occurs at the site mainly in
formal positions. During a Leadership Team observation, for instance, the principal
91
announced to the staff that one of their lower grade colleagues, present at the
meeting, had applied in the fall for a shared site curriculum specialist position and
had just been appointed to it. The new curriculum specialist shared excitedly with the
group that she would be helping her replacement transition into the job to assure
continuity for the students. The teachers did not show enthusiasm towards any part
of the news. This observation reveals individuals’ feelings about teacher leadership
at Traditional. The attitude was confirmed later by a survey response to the question
of the existence of site barriers discouraging teachers from leading curriculum,
instruction, and management, where a teacher replied, “Negativity and lack of
support from colleagues; if you move into a more formal leadership role at the same
school it can be hard ‘switching sides,’ as some see it” (Survey transcripts,
December 2008).
The researcher noticed that the majority of the Leadership Team meeting was
led by the site administrator. The leader’s demeanor was perceived as supportive, yet
directive. The tone of the meeting was characterized by open dialogue and
discussions. Throughout the session, the principal opened the discussion with leading
questions, and then took a back seat while the teachers brainstormed and dialogued
on the issue posed. Nonetheless, the formal leader constantly steered or guided her
staff towards the curriculum issue at hand. At the end of this meeting, the principal
shared with the researcher that one of her goals this year was to foster more teacher
participation and ideas initiation at these meetings. She expressed that members of
the Leadership Team do not have many leadership opportunities and “It would be
92
nice to have them [opportunities] even more, probably to broaden that more.
However, it is difficult because there is the time element. I think time works against
us” (Principal, personal communication, November 25, 2008).
Study findings indicate that teachers’ motivation, confidence and
empowerment to lead at Traditional Elementary is not part of the culture of the
school.
Ability and knowledge to lead. At Traditional, teachers are perceived by
colleagues as possessing a wealth of professional knowledge and using it efficiently.
A fourth grade teacher stated, “The lower grade teachers here do an amazing job
with the kids. They really get them ready for fourth grade and teach them all the
standards well. You can tell they plan and teach the lessons carefully” (Teacher,
personal communication, November 24, 2008).
Moreover, Traditional Elementary teachers are perceived as knowledgeable
in the areas of curriculum and management, as evidenced by information gathered
through a staff survey and presented in table 3 below. The totality of the teachers
(100 %) who voluntarily completed the survey, selected the choices “somewhat
agree” or “strongly agree” to the question of whether the teachers in the in the school
were regarded as knowledgeable in the areas of curriculum and management. The
teachers, then, have the ability and knowledge to lead in the school’s processes
related to curriculum, instruction, and management.
93
Table 4. Teachers in the School Are Regarded As Knowledgeable in the Areas of
Curriculum and Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
0
2
2
4
3-4 grades
0
0
0
3
0
3
5-6 grades
0
0
0
3
0
3
support
services
0
0
0
1
0
1
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
total
0
0
0
9
3
12
However, there appears to be a lack of appropriate school structures at
Traditional for fostering teacher leadership.
Outcomes of teacher actions. Teachers’ instructional program at Traditional
concretely follows the state standards, which is strongly encouraged by the site
administrator. At a grade level meeting, when commenting on how she spends a
good portion of her planning time figuring out what materials to use to help students
master specific content or skills, the principal expressed:
The materials and guides are there to guide you, but your standards should be
your road map. So what should you use as guide? The standards. You can’t
spend the whole school year figuring out what the kids don’t know. That
won’t work. That’s not how you do this. (Observation transcript, November
24, 2008)
This type of message was perceived throughout several of the grade level meetings
observed by the researcher.
Teacher actions at Traditional Elementary were consistently characterized as
driven by directions from the formal leader. Meeting to discuss the lessons and
94
components of a newly adopted math series, the teachers listened to the principal’s
goal, which was to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of the program. One of the
teachers asked, “Do you want us to make a list of the issues we see with this math
program?” (Observation transcript, November 24, 2008). The principal responded:
Yes, but let’s start with the planning first. I want you to use this time for the
planning. Then we can start the list of concerns. But let’s work with the
planning first. I want to be part of those conversations. I’ll be back in about
45 minutes. (Observation transcript, November 24, 2008)
Again, the dialogue and plan for this team meeting was administrator-driven, with
the teachers following the instructions given. Throughout the rest of the observation,
there were no indications of actions denoting teacher initiative on the curriculum
materials being reviewed and which the teachers had already been implementing for
a quarter.
Teacher action practices at Traditional did not evidence initiative and
participation in curriculum and instruction leadership activities.
Site decision-making opportunities. At Traditional Elementary, teachers
perceive having opportunities to voice their opinion and getting involved in decision
making on curriculum, instruction, and management issues. This is indicated by
survey results, offered in table 4 below. 83 % of the teachers who chose to
participate in the survey, selected the choice “somewhat agree” to the statement
“Teachers in this school are adequately involved in decision-making related to
curriculum, instruction, and management.” Interestingly, while contrasting, was the
fact that none of the teachers selected the choice “strongly agree” as a response.
95
Table 5. Teachers in this School Are Adequately Involved in Decision-Making
Related to Curriculum, Instruction, and Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
1
3
0
4
3-4 grades
0
0
1
2
0
3
5-6 grades
0
0
0
3
0
3
support
services
0
0
0
1
0
1
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
0
0
2
10
0
12
Classroom as well as grade level and leadership team meetings’ observations,
point out that teachers can make basic instructional decisions in their classrooms.
Traditional teachers have access to some instructional management options, such as
the order in which to teach a specific chapter and the time when each subject area is
taught. Overall data findings indicate that the availability of decision making
opportunities for teachers in curriculum, instruction, and management is very limited
at the site level.
Collaboration and interactions among leaders and followers. Interactions
among leaders and followers were frequently observed at Traditional. This was the
case between leaders in formal and informal positions and followers. Conversations
are encouraged, either formally or informally, and the site administrator fosters
communication with the staff on an on-going basis. This was captured in a response
in the open-ended question section of the survey, where a Traditional Elementary
96
teacher shared, “Our principal has an open door policy and takes recommendations
as to the topics that are important to us” (Survey transcripts, December 2008).
Collaboration is mostly evidenced among same grade level colleagues. This
type of interaction takes place formally in grade level meetings, and informally on an
on-going basis and as needed. Teachers report sharing materials and ideas with team
members: “I have attended some special training sessions and I have shared what I
learned with my grade level teachers” (Survey transcripts, December 2008). Mutual
interdependency does not characterize teachers’ collaborative relationships. Rather,
some reciprocity is evident when working towards a goal assigned by the principal,
such as reviewing various curricular aspects of the new math program.
Emerging leadership opportunities. At Traditional, opportunities for
cultivating the emergence of leadership are rather limited. Data shows some
evidence of instructional leadership, while curriculum and management decisions are
mostly made by formal leaders, both at the site and at the district levels. Regarding
opportunities to lead, a teacher commented, “Leadership opportunities…there aren’t
a lot, especially in the areas of management and curriculum. You can join the
Leadership Team, because it is opened to all of us, and that is a venue for ideas for
the management of instruction”(Teacher, personal communication, November 26,
2008).
Expertise and ability are not factors that facilitate emerging leadership
functions at Traditional. As mentioned earlier, leadership is implemented by
individuals in the organization with formal roles of leadership, like the site
97
administrator. Most of the evidence gathered in the study points to the Leadership
Team as the principal forum for leadership opportunities for teachers. Thus, this
Team symbolizes the main avenue in the organization’s leadership activities.
2. Instruction
Instruction is the second theme used to categorize the findings in this study,
as several of the tools used to collect the data were designed around the instructional
processes at the sites, as well as the decision-making roles of formal and informal
leaders over instruction.
Distributed Leadership Elementary
Instructional classroom decisions, practices, creativity, and teaching style.
At Distributed Elementary, results indicate that teacher leadership and decision
making initiative are important components of their instructional practices.
Classroom observations and interviews reveal that teachers have a plethora of
options in the planning, design, and delivery of their educational program. Teachers
express having the autonomy to design their lessons and deliver their instruction. An
experienced teacher at the site asserted, “Teachers are the best managers of their own
instruction. We can take a given curriculum, by the state, and interpret it and arrange
the way it is given through our instruction, by our own decision-making and our own
creativity”(Teacher, personal communication, November 15, 2008).
The formal leader at Distributed encourages teachers to be creative in their
instruction, while helping all students succeed. She gives them ownership of their
teaching, provided the curriculum and state standards are covered throughout the
98
year. This transfers into the classrooms and was evidenced by observations whereby
the content taught was presented in completely, and even contrasting ways across the
same grade level. For instance, while teaching a fifth grade lesson on the American
Revolution, one teacher used journaling to help the students reflect on the many
aspects of this event, while another one taught it through a reader’s theater. Both
lessons engaged the students, comprehensive and creatively covered the content, and
were effective.
Data findings indicate constant and open communication with the formal
leader as a factor directly related to and affecting instructional creativity. Distributed
Elementary has an open door policy, where staff members are continually sharing
with the principal and with each other. This is done through weekly bulletins, daily
e-mails, daily teacher planning time, weekly grade level meetings with the principal,
bimonthly Team Leaders meetings, weekly principal walk throughs, and on-going
personal interactions and conversations. In observations of these instructionally
oriented interactions, the researcher noted that the principal uses a distributive
approach most of the time, whereby teachers are encouraged to use their expertise to
design their instruction and lessons. However, depending on the particular situation
or circumstance, she sometimes utilizes a traditional, top down approach; the
principal, for example, decides on the schedule for the completion of the fall and
spring writing and anchor assessments.
Accountability, mandates pressure, and assessment. Distributed Elementary
staff members are under pressure, as all the students in the school in grades second
99
through sixth must meet state standards and achieve a Proficient level in English-
language arts and math. This state mandate affects curriculum and instruction and,
many times, represents a barrier in the flow of the teaching process. A teacher
expressed this perception by stating:
Standards provide some sort of barrier because there are certain standards
that we do have to teach, which doesn’t leave room for some other things that
might come up in discussion and sometimes I don’t feel like I can spend a lot
of time on things that the kids might be interested in because I have to cover
other things. (Teacher, personal communication, October 29, 2008)
Along with this pressure, teachers report constantly having to set aside
instructional time to assess their students’ progress in meeting state standards.
Although the majority of Distributed students have been meeting grade level exit
standards in the last few years, accountability and pressure are always on. This fact
was apparent in survey results, provided in Table 5 below, where 90% (20/22) of the
participating teachers chose “strongly agree” and “”somewhat agree” to the
statement “Teachers in the school feel pressure to meet accountability standards
associated with state-mandated testing.”
Table 6. Teachers in the School Feel Pressure to Meet Accountability Standards
Associated with State-Mandated Testing
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
0
2
5
8
3-4 grades
1
0
0
0
3
4
5-6 grades
0
0
0
2
5
7
support
services
0
0
0
0
2
2
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
100
Table 6: Continued
total
1
1
0
4
16
22
Additionally, the formal site and district leaders frequently communicate to
teachers the need for the instruction to parallel the standards and tests’ content. One
of the Team Leaders revealed her frustration with this pressure when sharing,
“We’ve become entrenched in some of the regulations and this hype about test
scores…I think we have gotten away from what we might really feel in our
experience is good and true instruction” (Teacher, personal communication,
September 10, 2008).
Thus, although Distributed Elementary teachers feel empowered and have a
wide scope in their instructional program design and decision-making, they have
great pressure associated with state mandates, assessment, and accountability.
Time: instructional, planning, and colleague collaboration. Time to plan and
collaborate is an important aspect embedded in the culture at Distributed. This is
evidenced and was observed in weekly grade-level planning meetings, as well as in
the daily thirty-minute planning time that all teachers at the school have.
Additionally, there are daily, one-hour Early Bird and Late Bird periods in first,
second, and third grades. During this hour slots, allocated to language arts, the
teachers have only ten of their classroom students, which afford them qualitative
instructional time.
101
During the daily planning time that Distributed teachers have, they generally
brainstorm and collaborate with grade level colleagues. The researcher observed
collegiality and open communication when planning, among a group of third grade
teachers, who where problem solving on ways to teach response to literature more
effectively. Additionally, the teachers were using the time to reflect on their personal
expertise on this aspect of language arts instruction, and sharing their experiences
with other members of their grade level. The dialogue was very professional and, at
one point, a teacher asked one of her colleagues if she could go in to observe her
teaching response to literature; other teachers echoed in this proposal.
Although teachers at Distributed Elementary have a daily period to plan their
lessons or collaborate with grade level colleagues, they shared that their planning
time was quite limited. A teacher expressed to the researcher, “Time is definitively a
constraint. And I think it is a constraint for curriculum and instruction, because I
don’t think you have enough time to plan all the activities” (Teacher, personal
communication, September 10, 2008). A lack of time to collaborate and plan with
cross-level colleagues was also expressed by some of the teachers.
Distributed teachers have the autonomy to use the daily planning time in a
variety of ways, including individual lesson planning, grade-level planning,
instructional preparation, and grade-level meetings with the principal. During this
time, opportunities for professional growth often emerge such as when the teachers
proposed to the formal leader, through a Team Leaders’ forum, choosing a
102
technology expert at each grade level to help them incorporate curriculum with their
new technology. The principal agreed and the idea moved forward.
Instructional teacher actions that are proposed, collaborated on, carried out,
discussed, and reflected upon in groups and individually are identified as part of
Distributed routines. Time for these actions exist, but is limited.
Student achievement. Student achievement is consistently high at Distributed,
as evidenced through various data collection tools utilized in this case study.
Research findings indicate that instruction is the educational component that affects
student performance the most (Marzano, 2003), which highlights the quality of the
instructional program implemented at this school. Teachers at Distributed are aware
of this fact, as expressed by a support services teacher, “How you deliver the
instruction, how you manage it, will have a lot of weight on the achievement of the
students you teach” (Teacher, personal communication, September 26, 2008).
Equally important is the emphasis staff members at Distributed Elementary
place on efficiently reaching and teaching all types of learners. This mirrors the
mission of the school’s Every Student Succeeds plan. A teacher shared:
We have identified students and not only those in need, but a lot of the
teachers have developed their strategies to touch the students in a variety of
ways whether you are thinking of it as multimodality, or differentiation, or
multiple intelligences. I think that that affects student achievement. (Teacher,
personal communication, September 10, 2008)
Teachers demonstrate awareness of the scope of abilities among their students and
thus, differentiate their instruction; the students’ needs guide their teaching.
103
Additionally, the formal site’s and district leaders’ emphasis on differentiation was
heard by the researcher both at staff and at Team Leaders meetings. There is a
positive and important interaction noticed between this goal set by the leaders and
the autonomy, creativity, and empowerment observed in Distributed teachers’
instructional process.
Traditional Leadership Elementary
Instructional classroom decisions, practices, creativity, and teaching style.
At Traditional Elementary, data results point to instructional classroom decisions,
practices, and teaching styles that are characterized as traditional and top down.
Teacher leadership and decisions related to the instructional program implemented in
classrooms was observed as being guided and led by two main components: the
formal leader instructional directives and the state standards. Thus, instructional
decision-making is currently not perceived by teachers as being part of the culture at
Traditional. This perception was captured in a response provided by the site
administrator, “I strive for [instructional decision making] on a daily basis. It doesn’t
always work. It is hard because sometimes I think they [teachers] would rather have
me make the decisions and then…okay, we are done, let’s move on” (Principal,
personal communication, November 25, 2008). Furthermore, the formulation of
major classroom decisions is perceived by Traditional staff members as part of the
site administrator’s responsibilities.
The development of teacher leadership and, closely associated with it,
instructional creativity, is limited at Traditional. Opportunities to lead at the site and
104
in the development of classroom instruction is narrow, as stated by the formal leader,
“Teachers are given that role … it would be nice to have it even more, probably to
broaden that [development of instructional leadership] more. However, it is difficult
because there’s the time element. I think time works against us” (Principal, personal
communication, November 25, 2008). The teachers were observed delivering the
curriculum to the students in the classrooms using the teacher’s guide rigorously,
aiming to cover major content standards, with little opportunity to creatively design
and present their instruction. This approach, while reaching the majority of the
classroom students, impacts those learners with more specific needs. In order to help
those learners at Traditional Elementary not meeting state standards, the site
administrator recently adopted a literacy intervention remediation program.
While Traditional teachers are valued at their site, their instruction is mainly
guided and implemented by site mandates. These directives are communicated
through weekly bulletins, e-mails, staff meetings, principal walk throughs and
follow-up conversations, and quarterly grade level meetings with the principal.
Observations of these instructionally-based exchanges reveal the principal’s
utilization of a traditional, top down approach in the schoolwide implementation of
the instructional program.
Accountability, mandates pressure, and assessment. As mentioned in the
previous section, state mandates demands, in the form of curriculum content
standards and assessments, affect the instructional program and delivery decisions.
An upper grade teacher shared this common point of view among Traditional staff
105
members, “Many of us feel overwhelmed by all of the paperwork, the [ongoing]
testing, and the accountability measures, etc.” (Survey transcript, December 2008).
Additionally, all students in second grade and above at Traditional
Elementary are expected to master academic content standards and attain proficient
or advanced levels in English-language arts and math. As a result of this state
mandate, the district’s administrators, including the site’s principal, are continually
checking performance scores, student achievement, and outcomes of remediation
programs. On many occasions, teachers are asked to switch around classroom
schedules, lessons, and instructional programs in order to accommodate proposed
curriculum changes aimed at improving student performance and with it, annual
achievement scores. At an observation of a grade level meeting, where the discussion
centered around scheduling times for the literacy intervention program, a lower
grade teacher stated, “You guys know me. You tell me and I’ll make it work. I have
already had to change the schedule twice this year, so that will be the third time.”
(Observation transcript, December 2008).
This pressure is unanimously shared among staff members, as evidenced in
survey results, presented in Table 6 below, where 100% (12/12) of the teachers that
participated in the survey chose the options “strongly agree” and “”somewhat agree”
to the statement “Teachers in the school feel pressure to meet accountability
standards associated with state-mandated testing.”
106
Table 7. Teachers in the School Feel Pressure to Meet Accountability Standards
Associated with State-Mandated Testing
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
0
0
4
4
3-4 grades
0
0
0
1
2
3
5-6 grades
0
0
0
2
1
3
support
services
0
0
0
0
1
1
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
0
0
0
4
8
12
Instructional decisions and practices at Traditional are guided and impacted
by mandates pressure, testing, and accountability measures. This affects the
instructional process, teacher leadership, and creativity.
Time: instructional, planning, and colleague collaboration. Time to plan and
collaborate was identified as a constraint per observations and data findings.
Instructional time was also reported as being an organizational limitation. In general,
teachers have a weekly planning time to collaborate with grade level colleagues.
Sometimes the whole grade level meets during this period, while in other instances
teachers use this time to prepare their lessons. This lack of time is also what limits
staff involvement in school actions and leadership opportunities, as expressed by one
of Traditional Elementary teachers, “Time constraints and pressure to meet all grade
level standards are a main barrier that discourages me from taking on leadership
opportunities” (Survey transcript, December 2008).
107
The researcher observed several grade level meetings, which had been
scheduled with the purpose of unpacking the newly adopted math curriculum and
also to schedule the weekly classroom times for the literacy intervention program. In
each of these meetings, scheduled for a half day, the site administrator set the agenda
at the beginning of the session. The teachers were not observed taking initiative or
leading the meeting, but rather asking the principal specific questions as to the order
in which to discuss specific agenda items. As the principal was leaving, for instance,
a teacher asked, “Do you want us to make a list of the issues we see with this math
program?” to which the site administrator asserted, “Yes, but let’s start with the
planning first. I want you to use this time for the planning. Then we can start the list
of concerns. But let’s work with the planning first” (Observation transcripts,
November 24, 2008).
Staff cooperation and collaboration are also limited by the time and pressure
with state standards. When together in meetings, the researcher saw collegiality and
cordiality among teachers. A sense of partnership with their formal leader was also
perceived, and expressed by various staff members.
Instructionally, teachers expressed lacking time to cover all the standards and
thus, there is a constant sense of needing to catch up:
There is so much to do, and we have to complete all the lessons with all the
main components. I feel like I have never have time to completely cover all
the parts of the lessons. In this new math series is hard to decipher what is
essential and what is not. (Observation transcripts, November 24, 2008)
Observations, personal interviews, and survey results indicate that the leadership
model and dynamics at Traditional Elementary are not conducive to instructional
108
leadership. Additionally, there is no time built into the organizational structures to
foster the development of these leadership skills.
Student achievement. Traditional Elementary has experienced growth in
student achievement, as indicated by yearly measures gathered through document
analysis.
Student achievement is a core value expressed by the site administrator on repeated
occasions. At grade level, staff, and Leadership Team meetings, the messages and
conversations from the principal are student-embedded and student-centered.
Students are the focus and the goal of her messages. For instance, at an upper grade
level meeting, the site administrator expressed concern to a group of teachers about
those students in their classes not achieving and possible ways to help them:
One of my concerns is the RSP kids and their keyboarding skills. They need
that weekly practice at the computer lab. Also, that is an opportunity for your
students to practice their math facts using the software Fast Math. How many
of you have your students use this regularly, either at the lab or in your
classroom computers? (Observation transcripts, November 24, 2008)
During the conversations at this grade level meeting, the teachers were observed as
friendly and cordial with their colleagues, yet compliant to the principal’s directives.
They listened to what the formal leader expressed, and then waited on instructions of
what to do during the planning meeting. The principal instructed the group to use
student data, in the form of fluency benchmarks informally collected in the fall, to
plan for the literacy intervention program groupings. All in all, staff members at
109
Traditional make student achievement a priority, but the instructional leadership
process on how they achieve this priority, is completely controlled by the site
administrator.
3. Curriculum
The area of curriculum, which in this study includes the subject matter
knowledge, content, and related materials, is used to classify the data results as it is
closely aligned with the instructional program and with teacher leadership.
Curriculum leadership opportunities, site process for curriculum adoption, time and
forum for curriculum development and management, and standards or student needs
driven curriculum were used to categorize the findings.
Distributed Leadership Elementary
Curriculum leadership opportunities. Opportunities for teachers to lead in the
area of curriculum, encompassing subject matter knowledge, content, and related
materials, are very limited at Distributed Elementary. This was a generalized finding
evidenced throughout the various data results gathered at the site. When asked about
curriculum leadership opportunities, for instance, a teacher exclaimed, “Leadership
opportunities for the development of curriculum? None. [The curriculum is] given to
us from the outside and we manage it in whatever way we are able to” (Teacher,
personal communication, November 15, 2008).
The findings indicate that the site and district administrators ultimately make
the main decisions related to curriculum. Teachers at the school are invited to
110
participate on textbook adoption meetings, along with other school community
members, which encompass the breadth of options to lead in curriculum at
Distributed.
Site process for curriculum adoption. The procedure utilized at Distributed
Elementary in a new curriculum adoption cycle involves a series of meetings opened
to the organization’s stakeholders. These meetings typically involve a teacher
representative from each grade level, from every one of the district’s schools. To
illustrate, at a staff meeting, the researcher observed that after a brief series of
announcements, the principal dismissed the teachers to meet by grade levels. They
were asked to look at the six math programs that were being considered for adoption.
The researcher learned that later on, each group pre-selected three of the sets, which
were ultimately discussed and analyzed at a curriculum council meeting that
included two teachers from Distributed; a total of six elementary school teachers and
ten administrators were present at that gathering. Ultimately the principals, under the
assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction’s guidance, made the final
selection. This process was found to be standard for curriculum adoption in each
subject matter.
Although Distributed teachers do not have a strong say in curriculum
adoptions and this represents a systemic barrier in their growth as leaders, findings
show they do have an important role in molding and shaping the curriculum to fit the
needs of Distributed Elementary students. This is achieved through the development
of power standards, where the main aspects of a new program are selected by the
111
teachers and mapped out across the curriculum. An upper grade teacher expressed, “I
worked on the power standards for sixth grade language arts, and I was hired in the
sixth grade at the same time we adopted the new language arts curriculum, so I was
able to grow with it” (Teacher, personal communication, September 26, 2008).
Hence, data results identify teachers as the bridge between the new curriculum, its
development, and its successful classroom implementation.
Time and forum for curriculum development and management. Following
textbook adoption in a content area, teachers join committees, divided by grade
levels, and work on the development of the power standards during the summer,
before the fall implementation. Distributed Elementary teachers are encouraged by
the site administrator to be part of this process, and the committees are known for
being well represented by the site’s teachers. Moreover, taking part in the
development of new curriculum’s power standards is a critical responsibility for
Distributed teachers, as indicated in all the curriculum-related interview responses.
When asked about curriculum management opportunities, for example, an upper
grade teacher stated:
There are opportunities through the district where you can help develop
curriculum such as writing prompts, writing rubrics, things of that nature.
There is also, when we adopt a new series such as math or science, where
pacing [guides] and the main standards, the power standards, are created.
That’s developing the curriculum, that’s part of it. (Teacher, personal
communication, October 17, 2008)
Once the power standards are selected, they are incorporated into a pacing
guide and given to all the grade level teachers in the district in charge of instructing
that subject matter. An observation of the first staff meeting revealed that a good
112
portion of the time was allocated to the discussion and analysis, in same level
cohorts, of these standards. The principal referred to these conversations as
opportunities for teachers to develop and evolve their curriculum.
When asked about time and place to develop and manage classroom
curricula, several teachers expressed that time was built into the routine structures in
the form of daily planning periods, professional developments days, and staff
meetings. They also shared feeling limited in the amount of time they were able to
devote to curriculum with grade level colleagues. In terms of a forum, teachers again
pointed to the school’s formal structures, adding that they also spend a lot of time
before and after school in each other’s classrooms discussing the curriculum. A
grade level leader added that this was the forum where most of the important and
pragmatic decisions of curriculum development occurred.
Although there are teacher leadership obstacles in the formal process of
curriculum adoption, mentioned previously, Distributed Elementary teachers have an
important role in the shaping, development, and implementation of the subject matter
content and related materials. This is captured in the following team leaders’
comment: “We are encouraged to voice our opinions. They [administrators] trust us
to create our own curriculum and encourage us to do so” (Survey transcripts,
November 2008).
Standards or student needs driven? The curriculum at Distributed
Elementary is standards driven, as revealed in data findings. In expressing this fact, a
113
teacher shared her opinion on how the instruction in the class is affected by teaching
a standards-driven program:
We as teachers must teach to the standards, so that our students can achieve
proficient levels in the CSTs [California Standards Tests]. This I see as a
major barrier in curriculum. Consequently, instruction and instructional
activities are driven by these curricular decisions. (Teacher, personal
communication, September 26, 2008)
When selecting the power standards in the summer, teachers are reminded
that these need to cover the subject matter that the students will be tested on in the
spring. However, several teachers stated that although the standards limit the amount
of information they are able to teach, once they have a handle on the standards, they
can always augment and enrich the content presented to their students. Distributed
teachers, thus, are given autonomy to present material beyond the content established
by the power standards. This allows them to use their instructional creativity and
teacher leadership skills to meet the specific needs of the learners they teach.
Moreover, differentiation of instruction, based on student achievement, is a big part
of the site’s culture.
Traditional Leadership Elementary
Curriculum leadership opportunities. At Traditional Elementary, there are
very few leadership opportunities dealing with curriculum. When asked about
options available at the site or district to lead in the area of curriculum, Traditional
teachers pointed to being invited by the principal to sit in textbook adoption
meetings. Data findings indicate that participating in textbook adoption meetings is
the extent of curriculum leadership opportunities at Traditional. This observation is
114
further confirmed by the site leader’s reply when asked to describe school efforts to
develop leadership in curriculum:
We are dictated by the State as to what we are to use for our curriculum and
we are also guided by the standards. So I think that developing that
leadership in curriculum is more the grade level and sharing of ideas and
ways in which that curriculum can be developed and planned and
implemented to meet the needs of all students. (Principal, personal
communication, November 25, 2008)
Curriculum is thus given to all Traditional teachers to implement, with
minimal room for leadership opportunities in this area. This is further stated in a
District Goals document: “The district will provide effective programs and
curriculum” (Document analysis, December 2008).
Site process for curriculum adoption. When a subject matter is up for a new
adoption, the district invites representatives from all schools and all grade levels to
be part of the curriculum discussion meetings. Initially, these gatherings involve
various school community stakeholders that include teachers, administrators, parents,
and interested community members. This group of interested individuals is
eventually streamlined to include only site and district administrators as well as
teacher representatives. When asked about curriculum leadership opportunities,
Traditional Elementary teachers singly identified textbook adoption meetings as their
sole option to voice their professional opinion on curriculum preferences. For
instance, when asked about efforts made by the school to allow teachers to lead
curriculum a teacher responded, “There are always opportunities to be part of any
new curriculum adoption. Teachers can take part, but often it is difficult to give up
your own time” (Survey transcript, December 2008). Another teacher, in talking
115
about adoption and management of curriculum stated, “Well in terms of managing
the curriculum, the curriculum is pretty much decided upon by others and then
handed to us to teach” (Teacher, personal communication, November 26, 2008).
Thus, the general staff perception at Traditional is that textbook and curriculum
adoption meetings are the only place where teachers can participate in the subject
matter, content, and related materials that they will be teaching in their classrooms.
Time and forum for curriculum development and management. Once
curriculum is adopted districtwide on a specific subject matter, Traditional
Elementary teachers attend a staff meeting to discuss the general components of the
new materials. Teachers shared with the researcher that generally, a representative
from the textbook company provides a one-time in-service on the content and related
materials that comprise the new program. This is followed by implementation of the
curriculum in the classroom through the instructional process. Three of the observed
grade level meetings were used as the forum to brainstorm, discuss, and analyze the
different aspects of the new math series that had been adopted that school year. In
order to release Traditional Elementary teachers and give them time to engage in this
process, the principal hired half-day substitutes at the end of the second school
quarter.
The researcher observed that teachers started the meeting by asking the site
administrator how to proceed in their review of the curriculum. The principal
prompted them to start by planning and selecting the aspects of the program that
were aligned with the math content standards and that seemed grade-appropriate, and
116
then to identify those components that appeared challenging. Teachers shared their
experiences with the program, expressing several concerns such as, “[Something] I
see as problematic is…how are they including operations with fractions if they have
not cover it? Shouldn’t there be a standard before that lesson is introduced?”
(Observation transcripts, November 24, 2008). Thus, the sequence in the
presentation of concepts was raised as a concern, to which all the classroom teachers
agreed. A member of the group showed an example, in the scope and sequence
guide, of how the authors and publishers jump around in the introduction of concepts
in that series. The principal stated, ““That’s how publishers work and what they tend
to do is use the standards when developing the materials. The materials and guides
are there to guide you, but your standards should be your road map...” (Observation
transcripts, November 24, 2008). She also told the teachers that a representative from
the publishing company was going to be at Traditional in a month and, therefore, it
was necessary to devote the time to discuss and converse about the way they were
currently using and managing this curriculum.
Observations of the grade level meetings indicated that curriculum in the
various subject areas is delivered instructionally through the teacher’s guide, kept
closely aligned with the academic content standards set by the state, and carefully
monitored by the principal. Consequently, teacher leadership in curriculum at
Traditional Elementary is observed as limited, and there exists an expectation that
the formal leader at the site, or district, will make the major decisions surrounding
the development and design of the curriculum. To illustrate, the researcher was
117
observing at a leadership team meeting where the group was discussing the
development of writing rubrics for the site. Teachers agreed when one of the grade
level leaders stated:
The leadership of principals should bring up writing rubric materials and
also, along with that create a scale, of one through four, that is consistent
across the District. So then, if a student transfers to another school within this
district, there is consistency. The same should go for all subjects.
(Observation transcripts, November 18, 2008)
Standards or student needs driven? Observation and data results indicate that
the curriculum at Traditional is driven by tests’ content, which are constructed
around the California state standards. The students’ academic needs follow closely,
especially on those skills of the curriculum where mastery has generally not been
achieved. This finding is supported by data results, which point to the state standards
as an obstacle in the instructional program. A teacher shared this perception when
asked about curriculum barriers:
Main barriers would have to be the California state standards. There is so
much pressure with that and state testing, so the curriculum follows the
standards and the instruction follows these two. The instruction has to follow
the standards too, because there is so much to cover; the instructional
activities are affected as well. (Teacher, personal communication, November
26, 2008)
Another teacher, reflecting on the relationship between state standards, testing, and
student achievement, commented that the pressure imposed by the state mandates
had brought about greater accountability. Additionally, she expressed that her handle
of the curriculum had changed due to the pressure, “We are so under the microscope
with the testing and state standards, that we have had to take a closer look at our
118
curriculum to make it match students’ needs and achievement” (Teacher, personal
communication, November 26, 2008).
As described earlier, the site administrator at Traditional has communicated
to her staff that the state content standards should be used as a road map to guide
their instruction. The curriculum, therefore, is driven by the California state
standards and the students’ needs, at times, take a backseat.
4. Management
The last theme used to organize the data results is management, as it
facilitates the analysis and examination of methods and decision-making
organizational practices dealing with curriculum and instruction. The findings
associated with management were divided into the categories of individual vs. grade
level decision-making and actions, top down or bottom up decisions and actions, and
development of expertise and leadership.
Distributed Leadership Elementary
Individual vs. grade level decision-making and actions. Teamwork was
commonly observed to characterize the management of decisions at Distributed,
especially as it pertained to grade level curriculum. This form of decision making, as
reported by teachers, is ongoing. Regarding teachers’ perceptions on management of
curriculum and instruction at Distributed, a teacher reported, “[We have] freedom to
plan without approval and the flexibility of supplementing in areas we feel needed”
(Survey transcript, November 2008).
119
In terms of management practices, the scope at Distributed ranges from
collective leadership actions, as when deciding on specifics of the power standards
on a content area, to collaborated practices among the teachers of the organization, as
when cross-level planning and implementing vertical lessons school wide.
Individual decision making and actions are also common and a part of
Distributed Elementary’s culture, especially in the area of instruction. A teacher
shared,
“Most teachers are able to pace and plan curriculum and instruction as they see fit
within their own classrooms” (Survey transcript, December 2008). Moreover,
teachers are in charge of managing the instructional program in their classroom.
They also manage their weekly planning and curriculum with grade level colleagues
and support staff.
Data findings also indicate that systemic procedures for initiation of
leadership and managerial practices exist at Distributed. As part of it, there are
frequent interactions among teachers and the site administrator whereby ideas are
communicated, encouraged, and often implemented and managed by the site
teachers. The principal generally welcomes and supports initiatives and pilot projects
created and managed by the teachers. These individual and grade level actions are
observed in management practices at the site. Moreover, they are implemented and
defined by a group of people, their interactions, and the incorporation of other
colleagues into the practice. Grade level decisions and their management is a shared
responsibility among teachers and the principal.
120
Thus, management of grade level decisions at Distributed Elementary is
primarily carried out by groups or teams of teachers. This is specially observed in the
area of curriculum. Individual actions characterize the management of instructional
classroom decisions and practices.
Top down or bottom up decisions and actions. In terms of how decisions and
actions are managed at Distributed, a combination of top down and bottom up was
found to be prevalent. According to data findings, there is fluidity and flexibility
between top down and bottom up decisions and practices, and on many occasions,
adopting one over the other varies depending upon the situation at hand or the
organizational circumstance.
While some teachers reported perceptions of not always being included in the
management of decisions, most others expressed having an essential part in it. Data
results indicate that many of the curriculum and instructional management choices at
the site stem from directives from the central office administrators, many times
influenced by parents, which are then pushed down upon teachers by the site
administrator. A teacher shared:
Sometimes the District administrators make decisions from the “top down.” I
feel like I can use strategies of my own in the classroom, but some decision
making is enforced upon us [regarding instruction]. Parents can be over-
involved and influence some decisions made by district administrators.
(Survey transcript, December 2008)
Contrastingly, many practices are put into action and managed bottom up.
This is the case, for instance, of the pacing and teaching of the power standards
whereby teachers pick and choose the order and method of delivery. The unpacking
121
of the curriculum and the unfolding of the instruction are, therefore, managed in a
bottom up style.
Distributed Elementary staff use, therefore, a mixed style to manage practices
and make choices pertinent to curriculum and instruction. A traditional, top down
approach is sometimes selected by the formal leader(s) to enforce a directive. Other
times, a bottom up method of management is promoted and supported among
informal leaders and followers. As a result, a convergence of these two styles
occasionally permeates managerial practices at Distributed Elementary.
Development of expertise and leadership. Management practices at
Distributed Elementary promote the development of expertise and leadership. In
terms of ability, for instance, teachers report having developed appropriate, even
enhanced, job capacity and knowledge. They expressed that this is partially due to
the instructional program ownership that the formal leader pushes them to take. This
development of expertise is compounded with their instructional creativity. Teachers
report on-going classroom decision making regarding lessons, instruction, and
management. They are allowed to tailor the curriculum, as well as create and
eliminate portions of it, to suit their students’ needs.
Management practices at Distributed also foster the development of
individual confidence, empowerment, and consequently, teacher leadership.
Distributed teachers state being a critical part of the school, partaking in committees
that decide on curriculum and instruction issues school wide, and feeling valued as
professionals. They report being essential managers of their educational program,
122
“Teachers are the best managers of their own instruction. We can take a given
curriculum, by the state, and interpret it and arrange the way it is given through our
instruction by our own decision-making and our own creativity” (Teacher, personal
communication, November 15, 2008).
Distributed Elementary’s leadership model affords teachers a substantial
amount of management of their instructional program and curriculum decisions. It
was observed that teachers’ classroom practices when instructing parallel this
leadership approach.
Traditional Leadership Elementary
Individual vs. grade level decision making and actions. The management and
selection of decisions at Traditional Elementary was generally observed as being led
by the principal. Data findings indicate that on issues related to curriculum, the site
administrator generally makes major decisions and then discusses them with the
teachers. The curriculum used is standards-based and its content is presented in a
way that is very closely aligned with the teacher’s guide layout. Hence, there is little
creativity in Traditional’s curricular design and the grade level curricula and lessons
appear very uniform across grade levels. There is a perception at the site among
teachers that their job is solely confined to teaching. Barriers are reported in terms of
time and opportunities to manage and lead, as expressed by a teacher, “It is difficult
to find the time or energy to lead and manage curriculum on top of teaching” (Survey
transcript, December 2008).
123
Grade level decision making management was observed at Traditional to take
place when determining specific scheduling issues, such as the literacy intervention
times, as well as when organizing students based on test scores to group them for an
enrichment program. Also, Leadership Team meetings offer a forum whereby
teachers can have some saying in the management of decisions that pertain to their
grade level. An observation of a Leadership Team meeting revealed a discussion
about the new math curriculum, which was being implemented since the fall. The
teachers were asking for time to meet with grade levels colleagues to unpack the
various components of this program and some team members, including the
principal, were expressing their concern on piloting costs. One of the teacher stated,
“Piloting is expensive, but true ownership is needed when trying new series for the
first time” (Observation transcripts, November 18, 2008). The site administrator
agreed to a half day release time per grade level for teachers to discuss and manage
the new math curriculum.
In terms of individual management actions, teachers at Traditional
Elementary are in charge of administering some instructional decisions, such as the
order in which to teach a specific chapter, the materials to use with certain academic
content, and the teaching style and strategies selected to deliver their classroom
curriculum.
Top down or bottom up decisions and actions. Decisions and actions at
Traditional Elementary are characteristically top down. The formal leader manages
most of the site decisions. This is specially the case in the area of curriculum, where
124
teachers are given the educational program and a pacing guide to be followed in its
delivery. Moreover, survey results point out that management of curriculum and
major instructional decisions are perceived as being beyond the realm of teacher
duties at Traditional. The principal is reported as having the main responsibility for
these obligations. Hence, the site utilizes a top down approach.
Instructionally, Traditional teachers can make basic decisions on how they
manage the educational program in their classrooms. Classroom observations
indicate that a traditional teaching style predominates at the site, where instruction is
delivered mostly top down. Some individualization of instruction occurs at times, as
when teachers ask the lower performing students to work on mastery of number facts
through the use of specialized classroom software; the teachers support this activity
and walk students through the different components of the computer program. The
use of a bottom up method of management for decisions and actions is very limited
at Traditional.
Development of expertise and leadership. Traditional Elementary does not
utilize practices that promote the development of teacher leadership in management,
as found in data results. Systemic procedures are not currently in place at the site for
the creation and implementation of teacher opportunities to lead in management. As
mentioned earlier, there are few choices in the area of curriculum. Curriculum
decisions are led and managed primarily by the principal and, sometimes, a district
125
curriculum specialist. There are more choices in the area of classroom management
leadership, where teachers can make basic instructional decisions on parts of their
program.
Traditional Elementary teachers have opportunities to develop expertise in
the area of management, especially in classroom practices. Teachers were observed
in various forums working with grade level colleagues and with the principal; these
included grade level and leadership team meetings. These gatherings, led by the
principal, foster teamwork and collaboration and are curriculum, instruction, and
student-centered. Although most of the meetings were guided by the site
administrator, they provide an environment for the sharing and development of
management expertise.
Traditional Elementary’s formal style of leadership allows teachers some
opportunities to develop expertise in the management of their instructional program.
However, this directive yet supportive formal leadership style limits Traditional
teachers’ ability to lead and experience growth in their management practices.
Summary
Data results in this comparative case study provided relevant information on
the distribution of leadership roles at Distributed Elementary and its impact on
teachers working under this model. A second school site, where a traditional
leadership model is implemented, was also part of the study. The findings at these
two sites were compared, and the areas of teacher leadership development,
curriculum, instruction, and management where utilized as a lens through which to
126
organize and analyze the data. Results indicate that at Distributed, decisions dealing
with leadership in instruction and management and, to some extent curriculum, are
stretched over staff members including the teachers. Curriculum, closely aligned
with state mandates, accountability, and testing, is an area with limitations for
teacher leadership development and thus, in need of further research. Findings also
pointed out a central tenet observed at the site, which was the presence of
organizational structures that promote and build the relationship between teaching
and learning through established routines. The data additionally revealed that
teachers’ partaking and sharing in these activities contributed to the development of
their leadership skills. These findings parallel various components of the distributed
leadership framework proposed by scholars in the field and point to this model as a
viable and appropriate vehicle to help connect teacher leadership, ability, motivation
and action with student achievement.
127
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter discusses the findings presented in Chapter 4, as they relate to the
purpose of the study, which was to explore how distributed and shared forms of
leadership influence teachers’ motivation, ability, and actions, and if these result in
improved instructional leadership skills producing school improvement. The role and
effect of school-level leaders in fostering and developing leadership ability among
teachers, another important part in the study, will also be discussed here. First, major
research findings will be presented. This will be followed by a discussion and
practical implications section, which encompasses the research questions that guided
the study, along with their answers. The discussion will facilitate the connection
between the research on distributed and other forms of shared leadership introduced
earlier, the study findings, and its practical implications in the area of school
leadership. Last, recommendations for future research are presented.
Major Findings
There were three major research findings in this study:
1. By having access to the school’s leadership structures and routines,
teachers are able to share their expertise and deepen their knowledge, which transfers
into their classrooms through improved creativity, motivation, and effectiveness as
reflected in their instructional programs.
2. Consistent with findings in earlier research, this study found that
distributed leadership stretches the leadership over more members of the
organization than traditional models of school leadership do. This study also offered
128
new insight into how this distribution creates professional satisfaction,
empowerment, ownership, and enhanced responsibility in the decision making-
process dealing with the management of instruction and curriculum.
3. Findings provided by the study indicate difficulties with the distribution of
leadership in decisions and aspects dealing with curriculum.
An important theoretical implication of this study points out to the flexibility of the
distributed framework and consequently, the potential applicability of its distinctive
dimensions to settings other than those with a distributed model. For instance, the
emergent property of this model facilitated the development of leadership among
teachers with expertise at the distributed site studied, which offers possibilities of
leadership for teachers with similar knowledge at a traditional setting. Associated
with the emergent property, the openness of boundaries allowed in this study for
staff members to be an integral part of a school’s leadership process and with it,
important aspects of instructional decision-making. Another important feature,
applicable to school leadership frameworks, was the finding that in a distributed
setting there is room for bottom-up and top-down approaches which at times,
converge. These features of a distributed framework are transferable and applicable
to settings with other leadership models.
Discussion and Practical Implications
The summary and implications of this case study were derived from the data
collected, intended to provide answers to the three research questions:
129
1. Do distributed leadership practices in school systems result in increased teacher
motivation, ability, and action towards leadership (i.e. instructional leadership or
practices)?
In this study, teachers were able to utilize their expertise and ability in the
practices and structures of the organizational environment. The distribution of
leadership was found to promote the cultivation of teacher leadership. At Distributed,
teachers were encouraged to initiate pilot projects and share them with colleagues,
design their instructional programs, modify aspects of the curriculum, take part in the
creation of intervention programs and differentiation efforts, and so on, provided
their experiences and outcomes were shared across the organization. This resonates
with the literature on distributed leadership (Gronn, 2000, 2002; Harris, 2004;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Spillane, 2006, 2007; Spillane et al., 2001, 2003), which
explores the connection between the dynamic use of school staff expertise and
organizational improvement. Moreover, findings suggest that school activities and
practices that are fluid and accessible to leaders other than those in formal positions
benefit from this implementation of expertise (Woods, Bennett, Harvey, and Wise,
2004, p. 442).
Taking part in systemic leadership activities and routines, teachers were not
only able to spread their expertise and gain further knowledge, but also work in a
supportive school culture that strengthened their motivation. Although Distributed
Leadership Elementary has only been under a distribute leadership model for 3 years,
the findings reported indicate that there is trust and collaboration between leaders in
130
formal and informal positions and followers. In this study, it was found that the
culture of support and trust that has emerged since the adoption of the model has
brought about improved
teacher motivation, capability, and performance facilitating the development of
leadership skills. This finding adds new information to the existing literature on
distributed leadership.
Instructional leadership was found to be a visible and positive aspect of
teaching practices. Triangulation of the data in this case study was crucial in this
finding, as it allowed for the comparison of instructional leadership between a site
that distributes leadership and one that uses a traditional, top-down approach.
Instructional leadership was evidenced in the majority of the components inherent in
the instructional and curricular design at the distributed site. Assuming leadership
roles by expertise, individual and shared decision making, reflecting on practices,
and collaborating are all activities found to have a part in promoting the growth of
instructional leadership observed in the classrooms. This result furthers findings of
previous case studies on instructional leadership (Sebring & Camburn, 1992; Smylie,
1993) by identifying specific school actions that support the management of
instruction and instructional leadership in distributed settings.
Curricular decisions were found in this study to affect teacher leadership.
Teachers have minimal input in the choice of curriculum they will be implementing
in their classrooms. Although on textbook adoption years teachers are invited to
attend new curriculum presentation forums, it was found that they have little saying
131
in the actual curriculum selection process. Closely tied to state mandates,
accountability measures, and mastery of state standards, the site and district
administrators use a top-down, traditional approach to maintain a close watch on
curriculum adoption procedures. Nevertheless, the study also found that as student
achievement has continued to show steady growth and the distributed leadership
model continues to develop systemically over time, teachers at Distributed have
gained a voice in the individualization and selection of curricular design and
materials.
2. How are characteristics of a distributive leadership framework exemplified in the
actions of the school?
Several studies (Gronn, 2000, 2002; Harris, 2004; Spillane, 2006; Woods et
al., 2004) have identified components of school routines, functions, and processes
that are necessary for the distribution of leadership to materialize at a site. Many of
these components were features of Distributed Elementary’s actions, and included
openness of leadership boundaries, leadership opportunities according to expertise,
emergent leadership, and forums to collaborate.
The leadership, in this study, was noted to stretch beyond the principal to
include the teachers. Thus, leadership boundaries at Distributed were broader and
encompassed more individuals than what was observed at Traditional Elementary.
Going in and out of the leadership circle occurred consistently and it varied
according to the specific school circumstance(s). For instance, many of the
distribution of leadership roles occurred in the area of literacy, given its tight
132
connection with state testing and consequently, great vulnerability. Teachers
reflected on their practices, roles, responsibilities, and impact on student
achievement, and this information was shared at grade level or staff meetings where
pilot projects or instructional plans to further differentiation efforts in literacy were
frequently proposed; many of these projects were eventually successfully
implemented. This is an important finding as it adds to the existing research on
distributed leadership, while providing new knowledge as to how followers become
informal and influential leaders. The distribution of leadership encourages the
openness of boundaries, which generates teachers’ trust, motivation, ownership, and
empowerment through professional expertise.
Knowledge and expertise in specific subject areas, like language arts, or
organizational procedures, such as designing an effective grade level differentiation
program, allowed teachers to take leadership roles in the distributed site studied.
Teachers at Distributed were supported by the site administrator and encouraged by
student achievement results to share with colleagues and further develop their
leadership skills. Empirical findings on distributed leadership have identified ability
as the vehicle through which followers can become leaders under this model. The
structures in the system were in place whereby teachers were able to become leaders
according to their skills, experiences, and knowledge, and the distribution of
leadership was broad and fluid. An expert teaching second grade struggling readers,
for instance, led the literacy effort at her grade level, while she followed a
colleague’s lead in the math differentiation plan. Moreover, this study found that
133
sharing expertise with colleagues offered an ongoing source of dialogue and
knowledge dissemination, which strengthened trust among peers and their formal
leader, promoted interactions, and was conducive to the establishment of routines for
the distribution of leadership.
Another characteristic of a distributive leadership model documented in the
literature and exemplified in the school actions is emergent leadership. As broader
boundaries in leadership practices and expertise have been incorporated into the
routines and activities at the site over the last three years, signs of evolving
leadership surfaced in the interactions of individuals. The emergence of leadership
was observed to vary, according to the specific situations and staff roles. This
characteristic is a valuable asset to the school, as it brings about important
implications to the distribution of leadership practices, including the potential to
acquire expertise in various areas, professional growth opportunities, motivation, and
leadership options. Furthermore, emergent leadership levels the playing field for
teachers and encourages them to take part in the decision making process of the
school, especially as it pertains to the management of curriculum and instruction.
Another important finding with important practical implications, forums to
collaborate were noted in the school’s structures and actions. As mentioned earlier,
there are daily scheduled planning periods, weekly and monthly meetings with the
principal and other informal leaders, and staff, grade level, and team leaders
meetings. It was noted that in these gatherings, there was always an agenda as well
as room for topics that came up. The dynamics surrounding decision-making
134
generally began with the principal, if she was in attendance, presenting open-ended
questions about the agenda issues; there was also follow-up time for specific site
project discussions. Teachers openly participated and volunteered their knowledge in
the subject matter, which fostered more interactions and collaboration, generating
trust and confidence in the process. Altogether, the process in these forums was
noted to make the distributed leadership framework at the site more sustainable, as
perceived by teachers. Teachers viewed this type of model as a viable avenue for
their participation in instructional decision making and thus, there was buy-in and
confidence. Parallel to previous studies’ findings, there were structures at the school
that promoted and supported the distribution of leadership, and with it, the
development of instructional leadership among teachers.
Contrastingly, a characteristic of a distributed leadership framework that was
found not consistently embedded in the school processes associated with teacher
leadership, curriculum, and management, was the practice used for curriculum
selection and adoption. In this study, findings indicate that this represented a barrier
for the development of teacher leadership in a distributed setting. Teachers expressed
frustration and a lack of voice and decision-making power with the way the
curricular programs were picked. Moreover, it was noted that decisions surrounding
choice of curriculum were resolved mainly by district and site administrators using a
traditional, top-down leadership approach; this limited the principal’s choice of
curriculum for her site. Findings also revealed that this organizational procedure was
a result of pressure from state mandates directly linked to standards, testing, and
135
accountability measures, all of which are symbolized by the curriculum. However,
findings also pointed to a shift in this practice as the distributed model has grown at
the site, whereby teachers can now select what aspects of the curriculum will be part
of their instructional design and implementation. This has important implications for
practice and offers new information that proposes that the combination of bottom-up
practices can converge with top-down decisions to produce change in a school
culture that distributes leadership. Furthermore, instructional leadership has
developed from this practice of curriculum selection.
Essential elements for the implementation of a distributed leadership model
in a school, broader leadership boundaries, expertise-based leadership opportunities,
emergent leadership, and forums to collaborate must coexist and be an ongoing part
of the organizational practices. These components, all noted in the study, appear to
facilitate the development of teacher leadership and help in developing confidence
and sustainability of the model.
3. How does the implementation of distributed forms of leadership at the school level
translate into the classroom?
The school practice of allocating leadership that expands beyond those
individuals in formal positions was noted to allow interactions that differed from
those observed at the traditional site. It varied in that the routines and activities were
more evenly dispersed among various individuals, thus having multiple sources of
expertise. It also differed in classroom practices, which were characterized by trust,
creativity, autonomy, instructional leadership, a sense of ownership of the
136
instructional program, empowerment, and widespread use of cooperative learning
groups. Furthermore, another novel and relevant finding was the transfer of the
school’s distributed practices into the classroom environment.
Interactions among teachers and students were noted to be open, and
embedded in trust and collaboration. The students, for instance, shared with their
teachers personal information, and were encouraged to try new strategies when
completing assignments. There was also a constant give and take among peers,
which included the nomination of classmates for leadership roles, like group
captains, according to specific knowledge necessary for the group assignments.
These interactions, promoted by classroom teachers, facilitated instructional
situations where student leaders and followers influenced each other, and thus helped
delineate the groups’ dynamics and leadership practices (Spillane, 2006). Moreover,
in this study, instructional practices at the site that distributed leadership were found
to incorporate cooperative groups and team activities more often than at the
traditional site. Additionally, a traditional, individualistic teaching approach was also
observed being utilized more sparingly across grade levels at Distributed than at
Traditional.
Among teachers, working collaboratively and having dependability were
common practices. Moreover, the features of leadership according to expertise,
broader leadership, and emergence of leadership permeated the interactions among
grade level colleagues and consequently, their classroom practices. This finding is
indicative of interdependence between leaders, identified as a key feature of
137
relationships under a distributed model (Spillane, 2006). Planning and grade level
meetings were found to have fluid dynamics whereby teachers led the management
of particular curricula in a creative manner driven by expertise and skill level. This
practice promoted open communication and critique, which created further reflection
of the instructional program’s components, both before and after implementation.
When teaching, these characteristics of group interactions filtered through the
instructional practices. In this study, findings indicate that teachers used open-ended
questioning at the beginning of lessons that encouraged student participation and
dialogue. They also used constant discussion, analysis, and reflection following the
introduction of new concepts. Cooperative learning groups and small group activities
that promoted student interactions were often used in the classrooms. Within these
educational environments, the learning stemmed from the content taught and the
manner it was presented, alongside the practices and routines built into the classroom
structures. These structures and activities were found to mirror the distributed
leadership practices implemented school wide.
A surfacing practical aspect of emergent leadership in a distributed setting
deals with the hiring of its staff. Individual leaders, both in formal and informal
positions, need to do their research in terms of the district’s leadership model used to
see if it is a good fit for them. The district personnel must also examine the
characteristics of the individuals that will be potentially hired, so as to ensure that
they are a good fit to help make the distributed leadership model effective.
138
In summary, teachers’ access to the school leadership structures and routines
allowed them to share their expertise and deepen their knowledge. These transferred
into their classrooms through improved creativity, ability, motivation, and
effectiveness as reflected in their management of the curricula and instructional
programs. Consequently, the implementation of distributed practices at the site was
found to be positively impacting student achievement longitudinally, as the
framework matures throughout the organization. Thus, an important implication of
the maturation process of the model for educational institutions is the transition
period. The transition from a traditional to a distributed leadership framework must
be gradual and slow, and all the changes in structures, routines, and activities must
be thoroughly discussed will staff members. Furthermore, the changing roles of
leaders, both in formal and informal positions, must be clear in what they look like
under a distributed model.
Recommendations for Future Research
Distributed leadership is a fairly recent theory and, as such, empirical
findings on educational systems under this framework are limited. This model,
therefore, represents an area that holds important opportunities for further research.
This study explored how the implementation of a distributed leadership model
impacted the development of teacher leadership, ability, motivation, and action and
the effects of this development on classroom practices. For the case study, a high
performing school that distributes leadership was selected. Based on all this
information, recommendations for additional research are suggested in four areas:
139
1. Use of longitudinal case studies to explore the development of teacher
leadership and student achievement in low performing schools, throughout
the various implementation stages of a distributed leadership model. Studying
the practice of distribution of leadership from its initiation over a period of
several years will yield new information on factors beyond curriculum and
instruction that affect its sustainability, effectiveness, and influence on
student performance.
2. Another important area for future research is the effect of a distributed
leadership school model on student achievement and student learning, the
goal of school leadership. Research is needed that explores the effect that
teachers working under a distributed framework has on student performance
and achievement in both public and private schools. Equally important is the
need to examine the impact that school administrators have on students and
their learning in distributed settings. Findings on these types of studies would
add to the existing literature and understanding on distributed leadership and
its implications on student achievement.
3. The area of curriculum needs to be further researched in order to acquire
empirical findings that can be used in delineating ways to incorporate
teachers in the distribution of leadership in curriculum selection, while at the
same time complying with state standards’ mandates. Studies that explore
how leadership is stretched in other educational institutions that distribute
leadership would add to the current knowledge of teacher leadership in the
140
area of curriculum, possibly including the identification of factors that
facilitate and/or constrain the development of curriculum leadership.
4. Given the pressure public schools face due to rules and regulations generated
by state standards’ mandates, a study that explores distributed leadership at
an independent school would generate important and needed information.
Teacher decision-making in the area of curriculum selection, as well as on
instruction and management at an independent school, will produce valuable
information to add to the distributed leadership literature.
5. Study of teacher leadership development associated with ability, motivation,
and actions in sites that have been under a distributed leadership model for
more than five years would allow for the examination of how leadership
skills, under this framework, evolve over time along with its positive and
potentially negative consequences.
6. Research other schools that use a distributed leadership model, including sites
that are farther along, and examine teachers’ satisfaction with their leadership
roles and its possible effects on student achievement. Equally important is the
identification, through the use of comparative case studies, of the processes
used at different sites for the distribution of leadership.
Conclusions
Empirical findings on distributed leadership make this a promising
framework that aligns properly with current state mandates and accountability
measures, dictated by the No Child Left Behind legislation. At the heart of the
141
legislation is student achievement. Instructional leadership that is visionary and
moves a whole educational organization forward is no longer fit to be the sole
responsibility of an individual. Rather, broader leadership is needed to meet today’s
societal demands and implement school restructuring efforts. The distributed model
includes leadership from a variety of leaders in both formal and informal positions,
who lead according to expertise. As stated by Woods et al., “At the kernel of
distributed leadership as a concept is the idea that leadership is a property of groups
of people, not of an individual” (2004, p. 449).
Central to distributed leadership theory, collaboration, interactions, and wider
distribution of leadership must be built into the routines of a school under this
leadership model. Empirical studies have reported that consistent implementation of
these everyday practices under a distributed leadership approach produces the
emergence of professional communities that are teacher-guided (Elmore, 2000;
Spillane et al., 2001; Spillane, 2006). Furthermore, parallel to previous studies’
findings, there were structures at the school that promoted and supported the
distribution of leadership, and with it, the development of instructional leadership
among teachers. Findings of this case study resonate with previous research results,
while adding important information on how distributed forms of leadership at the
school level translate into the classroom.
Distributed leadership presents a novel angle through which to view school
leadership. As such, it requires change in the way leadership has been conceptualized
as well as materialized. However, the possibilities are promising and the findings
142
enlightening. Educational programs, goals and initiatives must evolve from within,
from the core of a site, to become part of its organizational structures through
routines, practices, and activities. Thus, leadership practices must be generated and
shaped by the people, the groups, the collective of the organization, not an individual
or a formal leader; the formal leader, however, is an integral part of the collective
and the decision-making processes. When the leadership is distributed throughout the
organization, a school site is better equipped to sustain change and educational
reforms.
This study was driven by a great interest of the researcher in learning about
and exploring models of school leadership that incorporate other members of the
school community and thus, widen the organizational leadership. This is of particular
importance in regards to teacher leadership, given the research-based evidence
pointing to the connection between teacher efficacy and student achievement, and
identifying the teacher as the most relevant factor influencing student learning.
Moreover, Marzano (2003) states that, “The act of teaching is a holistic endeavor.
Effective teachers employ effective instructional strategies, classroom management
techniques, and classroom curricular design in a fluent, seamless fashion” (p. 77). At
the end of the study, the researcher has arrived to the conclusion that adopting and
implementing a model of distributed leadership in schools is a promising practice
with the capability of facilitating and promoting teacher motivation, ability, and
action. Furthermore, it also opens the door for the meaningful involvement of the
teachers in the school’s processes of instructional and curricular leadership.
143
REFERENCES
Alvy, H., & Robbins, P. (1998). If I only knew: Success strategies for navigating the
principalship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of
the "black box" of school reform. International Journal of Educational
Management. 16(4), 152-59.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 349-378.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’
perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Burbank Unified School District (2008). Schools. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from
http://www.burbank.k12.ca.us/
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2004). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. L. (2002). The quest for a new hierarchy in education:
From loose coupling, back to tight? Journal of Educational Administration,
40(6), 521-533.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education (2007a). Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program: Paradise canyon elementary school. Retrieved April 5,
2008, from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2006/Viewreport.aspdocuments/explainstarprnts.pdf
California Department of Education (2007b). 2007 Growth Academic Performance
Index (API) Report. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/AcntRpt2007/2007GrowthSch.asp
California Department of Education (2007c). Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program: Joaquin miller elementary school. Retrieved May 9, 2008,
from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2006/viewreport.asp
144
Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2001). Capturing complexity in educational leadership.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cross, C. (2004). Political Education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the Frog into a Prince: Effective Schools Research,
Policy, and Practice at the District Level. Harvard Educational Review.
54(2), 129-51.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in
schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cuban, L. (2004). A solution that lost its problem: centralized policymaking and
classroom gains. In N. Epstein (Ed.), Who's in charge here? The tangled web
of school governance and policy, (pp. 104-130). Washington, D.C.:
Education Commission of the States.
Danielson, C. (2005). Strengthening the school’s back. National Staff Development
Council, 26 (2), 34-38.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform:
Leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(2), 219-249.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford: CA. Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership. 59(8),
12-15.
Erlandson, D. A., & Bifano, S. L. (1987). Teacher empowerment: What research
says to the principal. NASSP Bulletin. 71(503), 31-36.
Elmore, R. F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational
Researcher, 24(9), 23-26.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
145
Frost, D. (2005). Resisting the juggernaut: Building capacity through teacher
leadership in spite of it all. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 83.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol,
PA: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8),
581-584.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership. 59(8), 16-20.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons
from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership.
Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13 (4), 423-451.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education. 33(3). 329-350.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership: How has the model evolved and what
have we learned? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresy, Fantasy or
Possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-24.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or
misleading? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(1),
11-24.
Harris, A. (2005). Leading or Misleading? Distributed Leadership and School
Improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 37(3), 255-265.
146
Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now?
British Journal of Educational Studies. 55(2), 202-214.
Heller, M. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of
leadership for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-
86.
Howe, W. (1994, April). Beyond garbage cans: An analysis of theory and research in
educational leadership and recommendations for the future. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Ingersoll, R. (1991). Loosely coupled organizations revisited. Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association, 1991, April 3-7, 1-53.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001, April). Leadership for student learning:
Redefining the teacher as leader (ED 457-136), Washington DC: Task Force
on Teacher Leadership.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (1996). Standards for school
leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant. Helping
teachers develop as leaders (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kellogg, J. R. (2006). An examination of distributed leadership in a public school
district. Ed.D. dissertation, Ohio University, United States – Ohio. Retrieved
May 15, 2008, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database.
(Publication No. AAT 3234225).
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Content knowledge: A compendium of
standards and benchmarks for K-12 education (3
rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the
21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA.:
Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. J., Ed, Carducci, R., Ed, & Contreras-McGavin, M., Ed. (2006).
Rethinking the "L" Word in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 31(6), 1-218.
Krovetz, M. L., & Arriaza, G. (2006). Collaborative teacher leadership: How
teachers can foster equitable schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
147
Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 430-443.
La Canada Unified School District (1997, January). District Profile. Retrieved April
7, 2008, from http:// http://www.lcusd.net/
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed leadership. National Association of Elementary
School Principals Research Roundup, 19(4). Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.
Lauer, P. A., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn, M., Van Buhler, R. J., Stoutemyer, K., &
Snow-Renner, R. (2005). The influence of standards on k-12 teaching and
student learning: A research synthesis. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from
http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/12948
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998). Teacher leadership-Improvement through
empowerment? : Educational Management and Administration, 31(4), 437-
448.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A
replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415-434.
Lemahieu, P., Roy, P., & Foss, H. (1997). Through a lens clearly: A model to guide
the instructional leadership of principals. Urban Education, 31(5), 582-608.
Lovely, S. D. (2005). Making the leap to shared leadership: The first step to creating
a championship school is to match teacher leaders to tasks that suit their
talents and interests. Journal of Staff Development. 26(2), 16-21.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria: VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
148
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership-Improvement through
empowerment?: An overview of the literature. Educational Management and
Administration. 31(4), 437-448.
Murphy, J. (1994). Redefining the principalship in restructuring schools. NASSP
Bulletin. 78(560), 94-99.
Murphy, J. (2000). Governing America's schools: The shifting playing field.
Teachers College Record. 102(1), 57-84.
Murphy, J. (2006). A new view of leadership. Journal of Staff Development. 27(3),
51-52, 64.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983a, April). In A Nation at
Risk, Findings, 1-4. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983b, April). In A Nation at
Risk Recommendations, 1-8. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html
Northouse, Peter G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 393-329.
Oduro, G. (2004a). Distributed leadership in schools. Education Journal, August
(80), 23-25.
Oduro, G. (2004b) Distributed leadership in schools: What English head-teachers say
about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. Paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester,
England.
Olson, L. (2001). Holding schools accountable for equity. Leadership30(4), 28-31.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5
th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
149
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams
and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.
Sebring, P. A., & Camburn, E. M. (1992, April). How teachers are engaging reform
in Chicago: Differences among schools. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.
Smylie, M. A., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals:
Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150-184.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., & Jita, L. (2003). Leading instruction: The
distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
35(5), 533-543.
Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher.
30(3), 23-28.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a Theory of
Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum
Studies. 36(1), 3-34.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tyson, H. (1993). Who will teach the children? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, J. (2007). Conditions for Student Success: The Cycle of Continuous
Instructional Improvement. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center
on Reinventing Public Education, School Finance Redesign Project. Working
Paper 4.
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities
in distributed leadership: Findings form a systematic literature review.
Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 32(4), 439-457.
150
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yulk, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
151
APPENDIX A: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
The rationale for the use of observations in this study is to explore how
individuals in both formal and informal leadership positions interact in their work on
matters related to instruction and management. Prior to the observations, the
researcher will secure consent from the participants and will inform group members
of the research purpose.
Field notes and tape recordings of the meetings will be utilized for the
collection of data. The questions below will guide the observation process.
1. What is the purpose of the meeting in relation to management and
instruction?
2. What individuals are taking part in the meeting? What are their roles?
3. Who planned the meeting?
4. What are the interactions between group members like, especially
between those in different formal roles?
5. What observations can be made of the interactions between group
members in informal leadership roles? What about between leaders in
both formal and informal roles?
6. What observations can be made about the specific situations and
dialogues between leaders and followers?
7. How are decisions being made and what are the formal and informal
roles of those making them?
152
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Please provide a brief overview of your professional background with
particular emphasis on curriculum. Briefly describe your professional
background with emphasis on instruction.
2. What role do teachers and administrators have in the management of
instruction? Do they provide leadership in the development of curriculum? If so,
how?
3. Identify barriers that teachers or administrators feel related to working on
curriculum. How about barriers to working on instruction and instructional
activities?
4. What are your perceptions of teachers and administrators satisfaction with
their involvement in decision-making activities? Is decision-making part of the
culture of the school?
5. Describe the staff interaction when dealing with issues associated with
curriculum.
6. Describe school efforts to develop leadership in curriculum. Are there school
efforts to develop leadership in instruction?
7. Do you see any relationship between the school’s management of curriculum
and student achievement? If so, please elaborate on those relationships. Is staff
participation of curriculum management part of the school culture?
8. Do you see any relationship between the school’s management of instruction
and student achievement? If so, please elaborate on those relationships.
9. During the last week, did you try to influence a colleague(s)' knowledge,
practice, or motivation related to language arts, mathematics, curriculum, or
instruction? What about during the last month? If so, please elaborate on it.
Use the following definitions when responding to the interview questions:
• culture: behaviors and belief systems of an established social group (Ormrod, 2006)
• curriculum: subject matter knowledge, content, and related materials
• distributed leadership: form of leadership that incorporates the activities of many
individuals who work at mobilizing and guiding other teachers in the process of
instructional change (Harris, 2004).
• interaction: shared or reciprocal action; relationship that involves give and take
• instruction: interaction among students, teachers, and materials that includes teaching
strategies and instructional content (Spillane, 2006).
153
10. During the last week, did a colleague(s)’, practice, or resource influence your
knowledge, practice, or motivation related to language arts, mathematics,
curriculum, or instruction? What about during the last month? If so, please
elaborate on it.
Thank you.
154
APPENDIX C: PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES SURVEY
1
Part A. Instructions: Please circle your response to the following professional
background questions.
1. I work in the:
A. K-2 grade levels B. 3-4 grade levels C. 5-6 grade levels
D. support services E. school administration building
2. I have been in the field of education, as a teacher and/or administrator, for:
A. fewer than 3 years B. 3-5 years C. 6-10 years
D. 11-17 years E. more than 17 years
3. I have been in this school district:
A. fewer than 3 years B. 3-5 years C. 6-10 years
D. 11-17 years E. more than 17 years
Use the following definitions when responding to the interview questions:
• curriculum: subject matter knowledge, content, and related materials
• instruction: interaction among students, teachers, and materials that
includes teaching strategies and instructional content (Spillane, 2006).
155
Part B. Instructions: Please read each statement carefully. Then check (√) the
appropriate box accordingly.
Key: A. strongly disagree B. somewhat disagree C. no opinion
D. somewhat agree E. strongly agree
Questions
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree (A) Agree
(E)
A B C D E
4. Teachers in the school are satisfied with their
involvement in instruction and management.
5. Teachers in the school are regarded as knowledgeable
in the areas of curriculum and management.
6. Teachers in the school are provided opportunities to
lead the development of curriculum, instruction, and
management.
7. Student achievement in the school is strong because
of our involvement in the decision-making process
regarding curriculum, instruction, and management.
8. Teachers in the school are given appropriate time to
work on curriculum, instruction, and management.
9. Teachers in the school feel pressure to meet
accountability standards associated with state
mandated testing.
10. Teachers in this school are adequately involved in
decision-making related to curriculum, instruction,
and management.
11. Teachers in the school are interested in being leaders
in curriculum, instruction, and management.
12. Teachers in the school have leadership opportunities.
Part C. Instructions: based on your experience in this school district, how would you
rank the following in terms of leadership influence over curriculum, instruction, and
management? Please list them in order from most to least by placing the
corresponding letter in the correct line.
a. Teachers Most ________
b. Building administrators ________
c. District administrators ________
d. School district board ________
e. Parents Least ________
156
Part D. Instructions: Please respond the questions presented below.
1. What efforts, if any, do you feel the school has made to allow teachers to lead
curriculum, instruction, and management?
2. What barriers, if any, are there in the school that discourage or prevent teachers
from leading curriculum, instruction, and management?
3. How have you been involved in leading curriculum, instruction, and management
in the school?
1
This Perceived Leadership Opportunities Survey is an adapted version of the
Teacher Survey Protocol, created by John Kellogg.
157
APPENDIX D: TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY RESULTS
Distributed Elementary
Table 8. Teachers’ Satisfaction with Their Involvement in Instruction and
Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
1
7
0
8
3-4 grades
0
4
0
0
0
4
5-6 grades
1
2
2
2
0
7
support
services
0
0
1
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
1
6
4
11
0
22
Table 9. Perceptions of Teacher Knowledge in Curriculum And Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
1
5
2
8
3-4 grades
1
0
0
2
1
4
5-6 grades
0
2
2
2
1
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
total
1
3
3
10
5
22
158
Table 10. Perceptions of Teacher Leadership in the Development of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
1
3
3
8
3-4 grades
2
0
1
1
0
4
5-6 grades
1
2
1
2
1
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
3
4
3
8
4
22
Table 11. Perception of Student Achievement and Teachers’ Involvement in the
Curriculum, Instruction, and Management Process
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
1
3
3
8
3-4 grades
2
1
1
0
0
4
5-6 grades
0
2
1
4
0
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
2
5
4
9
3
22
159
Table 12. Perception of Teacher Time to Work on Curriculum, Instruction, and
Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
1
3
2
0
2
8
3-4 grades
2
0
1
1
0
4
5-6 grades
2
2
1
2
0
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
total
5
6
4
4
3
22
Table 13. Pressure on Teachers to Meet Accountability Standards Associated with
State-Mandated Testing
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
0
2
5
8
3-4 grades
1
0
0
0
3
4
5-6 grades
0
0
0
2
5
7
support
services
0
0
0
0
2
2
school
administration
0
0
0
0
1
1
total
1
1
0
4
16
22
160
Table 14. Perceptions of Teacher Involvement in Decision-Making Related to
Curriculum, Instruction, and Management
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
0
4
3
1
8
3-4 grades
2
2
0
0
0
4
5-6 grades
2
2
1
2
0
7
support
services
0
1
0
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
4
5
5
7
1
22
Table 15. Perceptions of Teachers’ Interest in Leadership Roles
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
1
6
0
8
3-4 grades
1
2
0
1
0
4
5-6 grades
0
2
1
2
2
7
support
services
0
0
1
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
1
5
3
11
2
22
161
Table 16. Perceptions of Teachers’ Site Leadership Opportunities
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
no
opinion
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
K-2 grades
0
1
1
3
3
8
3-4 grades
2
1
1
0
0
4
5-6 grades
0
3
2
2
0
7
support
services
0
0
1
1
0
2
school
administration
0
0
0
1
0
1
total
2
5
5
7
3
22
162
APPENDIX E: DATA ANALYSIS TABLES
Participant Position Principal Leadership Style
Decision Making
APW Lower
grade
teacher
We go to the staff meetings
and we listen and we are
talked to (p. 3, L 7)
I do think there are
leadership opportunities for
developing curriculum and
instruction but I think that
tends to be heavy on those
that are involved. (p. 1, L.
34)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
I don’t think that our school
makes much effort as far as
developing leadership
among the teachers. (p. 2, L.
30)
Teachers, I really feel like
teachers are not involved in
decision-making and it
causes stress, and it causes
hurt feelings, and it causes
so much dissention among
the teachers, because we
are not involved in so many
of the decisions. (p.2, L.
13)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
You have to get the
approval from your
administrators for adding
any curriculum that might
not be mandatory by the
State (p. 2, L. 2)
I feel decision-making is
mostly top-down, a
pyramid. (p. 2, L. 10)
AOE Support
services
As the school has evolved
in recent years in its
leadership approach, some
changes have come about in
curriculum and instruction.
(p. 3, L. 9)
Administrators make the
main decisions related to
curriculum, mainly dictated
by the California content
standards (p. 1, L. 31)
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
I feel that our
administration does not
provide many opportunities
for staff to engage in
leadership development
and/or development of
curriculum. (p. 1, L. 25)
I think that if we had better
leadership, better
I do think that decisions are
made for us, generally. I
personally don’t feel that I
am asked very often how I
feel about things here. (p.
2, L. 11)
163
communication from our
principal, this management
of instruction would be
stronger here. (p. 4, L. 4)
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
I think that decisions are
pretty much made from the
top down and we don’t
participate in a lot of the
decision-making. (p. 2, L.
17)
I think that the
management pretty much
tells us how instruction is
supposed to be given and
what we are supposed to do
in relation to the
students…and the materials
are provided for us. (p. 1,
L. 29)
ACC Support
services
Anytime I’ve had issues, in
terms of behavior, I have
received support from
administration. (p. 1, L. 43)
The P.E. teacher is kind of
separate from the
curriculum decision-
making activities. (p. 2, L.
24)
ADR Principal As a part of the evaluation
process, I might be talking
to the teacher about using
strategies that are going to
engage the learners really
closely in the process (p. 1,
L. 39)
I think that it is incumbent
upon the administrator to
make sure that she is
saying, “Alright, we are
going to make a decision.
Here’s the issue. So tell me
what the downfalls and the
upside is, and so on,” and
then, at the end, say,
“Okay, what is our
decision?” “What are we
going to recommend about
this?” so that people are
really aware that they are
involved in it. (p. 2, L. 3)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
I don’t think there’s a lot of
cross grade level
communication. I think it
would be interesting if they
at least do some type of
cross-level interaction.
(p. 3, L. 7)
I think everybody seems to
be pretty satisfied with
decision-making. (p. 2, L.
18)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
As far as the administrator
encouraging participation
[in management] or giving
opportunities to participate I
Decision-making has never
been, I mean, really
important decisions, it has
never been something that
164
would have to say no. (p. 3,
L. 17)
teachers were part of. (p. 2,
L. 12)
SAK100 Lower
grade
teacher
I consciously and pointedly
seek opportunities to ask the
administrator questions,
volunteer for chances to
share with colleagues and
I’m discouraged by the lack
of follow-through/initiative
by the administrator. (p. 2,
L. 14)
SAK103 Lower
grade
teacher
[site efforts to lead
curriculum, instruction, and
management] Choosing
textbooks, leading
workshops…
SAK104 Lower
grade
teacher
We are given many
opportunities to join
decision-making
committees on textbook
adoption and instruction.
We are encouraged to
voice our opinions. (p. 1,
L. 17)
SAK105 Lower
grade
teacher
Having [curriculum
barriers] publishers’
materials adopted that we
don’t like and being stuck
using it. (p. 1, L. 43)
S4 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Student achievement in the
school is strong because of
our involvement in the
decision-making process
regarding curriculum,
instruction, and
management.
S9 teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school have
leadership opportunities.
165
Participant Position Leadership Practice
Situations
APW Lower
grade
teacher
Teachers I do think that
they have a decent or strong
role in developing
curriculum, identifying
things like the power
standards, in choosing the
instructional materials (p. 1,
L. 30)
There is not a lot of sharing
across the grade levels.
And I think those are
opportunities for leadership
to be developed.
(p. 3, L 7)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
They had the power
standards groups. They
were trying to help get
leaders that would decide
on. (p. 2, L. 29)
I try to tell her about my
grade book and I try to tell
her about how I manage the
class, one class period and
how I manage and do the
class. She is a new teacher,
so I have tried to help her
in that. (p. 4, L. 31)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
There are L roles at the site,
that one can obtain.
(p. 2, L. 2)
A colleague at a different
grade level that has told
me, in working with me,
that she has learned and, in
a sense, implemented many
of my strategies for
classroom management and
things like that so I’ve
influenced some teachers
(p. 4, L. 10)
AOE Support
services
There are leadership
opportunities in curriculum
and instruction. The key is
to be well informed and
aware of these opportunities
and to act on them. (p. 1, L.
37)
I believe decision-making
is somewhat part of the
culture of the school, but
you have to be assertive
about opportunities that
may present themselves (p.
2, L. 31)
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
I feel that our
administration does not
provide many opportunities
for staff to engage in
leadership development
and/or development of
curriculum. (p. 1, L. 25)
In Team Leaders, there’s
only like 4 people on that
committee and I think that
committee should be bigger
so there are more voices (p.
2, L. 8)
166
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
I don’t think there is a lot of
leadership opportunity,
especially when it comes to
the curriculum. You know,
we pretty much get it and
we use it. There is not a lot
of discussion about it
or…the most leadership we
would do is take control of
an adoption of a particular
text and subject. (p. 1, L.
32)
I don’t think that teachers
are particularly satisfied
with not being involved in
some of the decisions that
are being made around the
campus and that it will go a
long way for the
administrator to clarify
why certain decisions are
made the way they are and
back up some of those
decisions. (p. 2, L. 19)
ACC Support
services
I did have discussions with
several teachers regarding
students’ performance in P.
E. and was invited to sit in
on a conference and I
shared information that I
wanted to share at a
conference. (p. 4, L. 10)
When I am evaluated, the
administrator has feedback,
suggestions, support.
Anytime I’ve had issues, in
terms of behavior, I have
received support from
administration. (p. 1, L. 42)
ADR Principal Is good if the principal
gives the teachers an
opportunity to involve
themselves, as a school site.
So we would get a chance
that. I might meet with the
second grade teachers to
talk about reading, (p. 2, L.
5)
Teachers could perceive a
barrier in that there are
certain guidelines, or rules
[standards], that they have
to follow and, they may be
feel hemmed in, because
they are no allowed to do
something on their own. (p.
2, L. 19)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
I think that the district does
provide good leadership
opportunities. For example,
I just taught an Open Court
orientation for the new
teachers in the district. (p. 1,
L. 30)
For the most part I feel
pretty trusted by the
administration to do my job
and to teach what they
expect me to teach, but also
with some freedom that I
am not being confined to
being on a certain page or
at a certain point in the
year
(p. 2, L. 8)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
Decision-making has never
been, I mean, really
important decisions, it has
never been something that
There is a balance between
teachers doing a good job
of creating instruction that
supports the
167
teachers were part of. (p. 2,
L. 12)
curriculum…we have a
tremendously well-
educated family
population, parents who are
very supportive of
teachers… instruction that
produces student
achievement. (p. 3, L. 10)
SAK100 Lower
grade
teacher
Current administration
(site). Lack of follow
through when ideas are
presented. to administrator.
(p. 1, L. 32)
I have sought Team Leader
positions. I consciously and
pointedly seek opportunities
to ask the administrator
questions, volunteer for
chances to share with
colleagues and I’m
discouraged by the lack of
follow-through/initiative by
the administrator. (p. 2, L.
14)
SAK102 Lower
grade
teacher
Several opportunities are presented and encouraged for
teachers to become a part of [lead curriculum, instruction,
and management]. I feel that more and more, teachers’
opinions are being sought out, and valued by
administration. (p. 1)
SAK104 Lower
grade
teacher
Team Leaders (2 years); grade level leader (many years);
math adoption team; report card team (I helped make it
up); Union rep; writing prompt team: they let the teachers
write it. (p. 2, L. 23)
SAK106 Lower
grade
teacher
Time – not enough time
and energy to put in
[leadership barriers] (p. 1,
L. 45)
S3 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers
Teachers in the school are
provided opportunities to
lead the development of
curriculum, instruction, and
management.
S8 Upper
and lower
Teachers in the school are interested in being leaders in
curriculum, instruction, and management.
168
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
S9 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school have leadership opportunities.
Participant Position Teacher Leadership
Accountability
APW Lower
grade
teacher
I think we have, most of
our teachers, if not all of
them, have the ability for
leadership and some
leadership capacity (p. 3, L.
2)
The teachers are very
vested and, so they care
about their students doing
well (p. 4, L. 6)
We meet at the beginning
of the year to identify
students and we may think
about how we are going to
assist them, and how we are
going to support them, to
bring those students up. (p.
3, L. 36)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
Of course in this district we
can choose our own
instruction in the
classroom. We are not told
necessarily what we have to
teach. They do have the
IPG meetings. (p. 1, L. 26)
Every student needs to
succeed and every student
has gifts and every student
has challenges and…no one
should fail. Every student is
individual. (p. 3, L. 20)
Certainly NCLB
definitively affects the
programs that we want to
teach and that we want to
run and parents, sometimes
(p. 1, L. 40)
169
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
In my class, I tend to do
things a little bit different
than my grade level
colleagues, and our pacing
may be somewhat different,
but we try to stay at the
same pace, (p. 2, L. 31)
It just seems like
curriculum is state
standards and our District
standards- and we are told
to teach those, to get
through them within the
time allotted. (p. 2, L. 40)
I hold my class and all my
students to high
expectations (p. 3, L. 21)
AOE Support
services
Instructional decisions are
managed by individual
teachers and are designed
and chosen in alignment
with the learning needs of
the students in one’s class
each year. (p. 1, L. 35)
As State mandated
standards are imposed by
the state, a District is
impacted in its ability to
expose the students to high
academic levels. (p. 2, L. 9)
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
I, personally, have never
been invited to work on
curriculum items at this
school site. (p. 1, L. 35)
I am always influenced by
others and it’s not just
teachers, sometimes it
could be our librarian, our
computer teacher… (p. 4,
L. 42)
I try to think through a
lesson so that I will be
reaching every student and
teaching each lesson in
various ways, using
different strategies so that I
am hitting all the students’
learning possibilities. (p. 4,
L. 8)
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
The leadership in
curriculum, there really
isn’t any. I don’t think we
get much of a choice. (p.2,
L. 36)
I think sometimes
administration can play a
role in being a barrier
because it is suggested that
we do instruction or present
curriculum in certain ways
and we are not always able
to do it in a way that we
think best benefits the
students…
The State tests are a barrier
because we are constantly
focusing on the test scores
and how to make them
higher than they already
are. (p. 2, L. 9)
170
ACC Support
services
They pretty much have
given me free rein to
implement my curriculum.
(p. 2, L. 8)
We have tremendous
student achievement (p. 3,
L. 21)
There are staff meetings
where they go over test
scores and clearly those are
high and the expectations
will remain high if not go
higher.
(p. 3, L. 33)
ADR Principal I don’t think that our school
has a real process about this
[curriculum decisions]; I
am not quite sure, really.
This is kind of raising a
question to me. I am not
quite sure if people feel free
enough about that (p. 3, L.
20)
I think that a barrier can be
that a principal or
administrator never goes in
the rooms and really
doesn’t have a good idea of
what’s going on and then
they go to the teachers with
advice. (p. 5, L. 36)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
In this district, there aren’t
as many teacher-driven
curriculum plans compared
to what I’ve seen in other
districts. (p. 1, L. 29)
I really don’t see a lot of
school effort to develop
curriculum leadership.
(p. 3, L. 19)
Most of the school’s
management of curriculum
and more so student
achievement has been
related to the test scores. (p.
3, L 27)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
Teachers are the best
managers of their own
instruction. We can take a
given curriculum, by the
state, and interpret it and
arrange the way it is given
through our instruction by
our own decision-making
and our own creativity. (p.
1, L. 26)
We are asked to participate
in an ever-increasing
bureaucracy surrounding
how we measure
everything. Measure,
measure, measure. We have
multiple measures. We
have anchor assessments
and that’s the way the
implementation or the
successful implementation
of the state curriculum is
interpreted by the school
district (p. 2, L. 26)
171
SAK105 Lower
grade
teacher
Freedom to plan without
approval and the flexibility
of supplementing in areas
we feel need. (p. 1, L. 21)
SAK104 Lower
grade
teacher
We have a young staff with
lots of children and babies.
Teachers want to do more,
but their families take
precedence. (p. 1, L. 40)
S2 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are
regarded as knowledgeable
in the areas of curriculum
and management.
S3 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers
Teachers in the school are
provided opportunities to
lead the development of
curriculum, instruction, and
management.
S6 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school feel
pressure to meet
accountability standards
associated with state-
mandated testing.
S8 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are
interested in being leaders
in curriculum, instruction,
and management.
S9 teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school have
leadership opportunities.
172
Participant Position Collaboration
Interactions
APW Lower
grade
teacher
Usually there is a sharing
of experiences by the staff
members and I think that
helps others to gain
experience and ideas that
can help and affect their
students with better
achievement and with better
instructional delivery. (p. 4,
L. 14)
I think we are lucky being a
smaller district that we can
try to work with the
administrators and there is
communication (p. 2, L.
11)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
We try as a staff to
collaborate, especially
within the same grade level.
(p. 2, L. 21)
I collaborate with the
teachers from the previous
grade levels (p. 2, L. 21)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
Grade levels tend to operate
and teach the same concepts
and follow the state
standards and many grade
levels actually plan together
and teach the same concepts
at the same time, same
week, and plan together. (p.
2, L. 28)
We interact at staff
meetings, we interact at
grade level meetings and
the interaction may deal
with curriculum or may
deal with handling
behavioral and classroom
management issues within
our grade level meetings.
(p. 2, L. 25)
AOE Support
services
The principal is supportive
of your participation and
initiative on those if you
invest the time and “do
your homework” before
embarking on these
activities. So there is
teacher satisfaction in
decision-making. (p. 3, L.
27)
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
The standards are so narrow
and we are so pushed to
teach to those standards that
there isn’t a lot of latitude
for sharing or cooperative
teaching (p. 2, L. 44)
I think that we are all
incredibly hard-working
teachers and I think that we
are each on our own little
island. (p. 4, L. 12)
173
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
We do have grade level
meetings to talk about the
curriculum and especially
with 3 new teachers at our
grade level, we are trying to
meet more frequently with
everybody to go over where
we are in the curriculum,
what we are planning to
cover…that kind of
information (p. 2, L. 27)
The administration has told
a couple of us about our
instruction and when we
can do it, so timing wise
with the curriculum and the
instruction. In other words,
we are not allowed to teach
certain things during early-
bird, late-bird time, except
for reading, even though
we can’t get in all of the
curriculum and instruction
in the regular day (p. 3, L.
24)
ACC Support
services
I know that there are leaders
at every grade level. They
go to Team Leaders’
meetings and I am pretty
sure that there must be idea
sharing regarding
curriculum and instruction
at those meetings. I know
that I see e-mails from the
teachers who are on that, or
who are grade level leaders.
When they are going to a
meeting sometimes they
will e-mail or ask for input.
(p. 3, L. 8)
I did have discussions with
several teachers regarding
students’ performance in P.
E. and was invited to sit in
on a conference and I
shared information that I
wanted to share at a
conference. (p. 4, L. 10)
ADR Principal They came back and they
implemented it, they talked
to the staff, they shared it
with the staff, 2 or 3
different times over the past
few years, (p. 4, L. 9)
I don’t think that our
school has a real process
about this [curriculum
decisions]; I am not quite
sure, really. This is kind of
raising a question to me. I
am not quite sure if people
feel free enough about that
(p. 3, L. 20)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
Our grade level is very
cohesive in that way and we
try to be on the same page,
for the most part. You can
go in any one of our
classrooms and you see a
You have people on Team
Leaders, different
committees, people on
curriculum council, people
that planned the Buy-Back
– we give input for that. (p.
174
lot of the same kinds of
projects, although we are
not doing the same thing at
the same moment, but
there’s a lot of
communication with our
grade level (p. 2, L. 39)
2, L. 29)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
There’s a lot of sharing
about ways to facilitate
curriculum during
instruction, especially by
older teachers, or more
experienced teachers
helping younger teachers to
do that. But that’s
something that is teacher-
driven and on an informal
basis often, more than
something that is officially
foster by the principal, the
site administrator,
especially in the last years.
(p. 2, L. 40)
With my grade level
colleagues, we are always
sharing activities, sharing
materials, sharing
experiences. It’s a constant
dialogue, back and forth
between us. (p. 3, L. 36)
S8 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are
interested in being leaders
in curriculum, instruction,
and management.
Participant Position Curriculum
Instruction
APW Lower
grade
teacher
Teachers I do think that
they have a decent or strong
role in developing
curriculum, identifying
things like the power
standards (p. 1, L. 30)
Things that have affected
my instruction not only the
experience with the same
grade level and the same
age, but also training such
as Multiple Intelligence
training, the District’s
focus on differentiation (p.
1, L. 17)
175
We’ve become entrenched
in some of the regulations
and this hype about test
scores, even though we are
doing okay and so, I think
we have gotten away from
what we might really feel
in our experience is good
and true instruction and in
curricular activities (p. 2,
L. 33)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
I worked on the power
standards for sixth grade
language arts and, I was
hired in the sixth grade at
the same time we adopted
the new language arts so I
was able to kind of grow
with it (p. 1, L. 15)
Right know we have the
Every Student Succeeds
plan and I really think that
the school is trying to get
us to the point where we
get every student to pass.
They are doing a lot of
things as far as
interventions, (p. 3, L. 14)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
There are opportunities
through the district, the
school district, where you
can help develop curriculum
such as writing prompts,
writing rubrics, things of
that nature. There is also
when we adopt a new
series, such as math or
science, that pacing and that
the main standards, power
standards…That’s
developing the curriculum,
that’s part of it. (p. 1, L. 25)
The State standards limit
the amount of information
that I am able to teach. I
feel that the standards are
very narrow (p. 1, L. 33)
AOE Support
services
We as teachers must teach
to the standards, so that our
students can achieve
proficient levels in the CST
tests. This I see as a major
barrier in curriculum.
Consequently, instruction is
driven by these curricular
decisions. (p. 2, L. 12)
How you deliver the
instruction, how you
manage it, will have a lot
of weight on the
achievement of the students
you teach. (p. 3, L. 39)
176
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
The State standards limit
the amount of information
that I am able to teach. I
feel that the standards are
very narrow (p. 1, L. 33)
I wish we could meet
together more often to be
more consistent, but we
haven’t been able to do that
yet. (p. 3, L. 44)
In P.E., I have 2 assistants.
We have about 100
students at a time,
sometimes more,
sometimes less, and we
each take approx. 35 and
instruct certain units…the
aides are under my
guidance and I give them
the instructional units,
through lessons plans, and
they carry them out from
there. (p. 1, L. 25)
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
I think that we definitively
choose curriculum that we
think the students need and
give them plenty of
opportunities to learn new
things and I definitively
think that that’s influenced
by the administration. (p. 3,
L. 10)
Time is definitively a
constraint. And I think it is
a constraint for curriculum
and instruction, because I
don’t think you have
enough time to plan all the
activities. (p. 2, L. 3)
ACC Support
services
In terms of curriculum, P.
E. teachers pretty much
have created our curriculum
without a lot of input from
administrators. (p. 1, L. 44)
ADR Principal There are also opportunities
for the principals, and
teachers, to participate as a
district… evolve their
curriculum, or they are
going to be involved in
adopting the textbook for a
certain curriculum. So there
are opportunities all along
the way, more for the
administrators than for the
teachers. But the teachers
do also have opportunities
for that. (p. 1, L. 44)
One of the things that I am
working on that I’d like to
have us do would be to
relate, to use groupings, the
small groups; I feel that we
use mostly whole group
instruction at our school.
I’d like the teachers to use
more small group
instructions where they are
differentiating the
instruction, or the
curriculum actually, but
they are using the small
group as a strategy of
instruction. (p. 4, L. 25)
177
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
In this district, there aren’t
as many teacher-driven
curriculum plans compared
to what I’ve seen in other
districts. (p. 1, L. 29)
Standards provide some
sort of barrier because
there are certain standards
that we do have to teach,
which doesn’t leave room
for some other things that
might come up in
discussion and sometimes I
don’t feel like I can spend a
lot of time on things that
the kids might be interested
in because I have to cover
other things. (1, L. 43)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
Leadership opportunities for
the development of
curriculum? NONE given to
us from the outside and we
manage it in whatever way
we are able. (p. 1, L. 36)
Teachers are the best
managers of their own
instruction. We can take a
given curriculum, by the
state, and interpret it and
arrange the way it is given
through our instruction by
our own decision-making
and our own creativity. (p.
1, L. 26)
SAK104 Lower
grade
teacher
Team Leaders (2 years);
grade level leader (many
years); math adoption team;
report card team (I helped
make it up); Union rep;
writing prompt team: they
let the teachers write it. (p.
2, L. 23)
SAK105 Lower
grade
teacher
Having [curriculum
barriers] publishers’
materials adopted that we
don’t like and being stuck
using it. (p. 1, L. 43)
SAK200 Upper
grade
teacher
We are given books to pilot
and give our opinion. (p. 1,
L. 26)
Not given sufficient time to
become acquainted with
curriculum before decisions
are made (p. 2, L. 3)
178
S1 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers
Teachers in the district are
satisfied with their
involvement in instruction
and management.
S2 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are
regarded as knowledgeable
in the areas of curriculum
and management.
S8 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are interested in being leaders in
curriculum, instruction, and management.
Participant Position School Culture
APW Lower
grade
teacher
I think that definitively working with her has influenced
my knowledge and practice and how I deliver curriculum
and instruction. (p. 5, L. 10)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
Teachers, I really feel like teachers are not involved in
decision-making and it causes stress, and it causes hurt
feelings, and it causes so much dissention among the
teachers, because we are not involved in so many of the
decisions. (p.2)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
For the most part the students are achieving at a high level
at our school. The teachers all seem very dedicated and
teaching the standards at a high level and constantly
monitoring their students’ understanding of the concepts.
(p. 3, L. 10)
AOE
Support
services
Activities that are not tied by budgetary constraints give
teachers a lot of decision-making power at our school. (p.
2, L. 24)
179
AMB Upper
grade
teacher
Some grade levels do meet and have a vision, have a plan.
(p. 4, L. 1)
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
I don’t think that teachers are particularly satisfied with
not being involved in some of the decisions that are being
made around the campus (p. 2, L. 19)
ACC Support
services
I think there are high standards for instruction and it
comes from parents, it comes from the administrators, so
the high standards and expectations definitively connect
with student achievement (p. 3, L. 30)
ADR Principal We’ve studied some curricular issues and instructional
issues. So, I think that that’s what he’d [superintendent]
like us to do to be more of a professional learning
community. So perhaps in the last couple of years we
have done that more, just because of those best practices.
(p. 3, L. 36)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
For the most part I feel pretty trusted by the
administration to do my job and to teach what they expect
me to teach, but also with some freedom that I am not
being confined to being on a certain page or at a certain
point in the year
(p. 2, L. 8)
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
There’s a lot of sharing about ways to facilitate
curriculum during instruction, especially by older
teachers, or more experienced teachers helping younger
teachers to do that. But that’s something that is teacher-
driven and on an informal basis often, more than
something that is officially foster by the principal, the site
administrator, especially in the last years. (p. 2, L. 40)
S2
Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school are regarded as knowledgeable in
the areas of curriculum and management.
S4 teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Student achievement in the school is strong because of
our involvement in the decision-making process regarding
curriculum, instruction, and management.
180
S6 Upper
and lower
grade
teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Teachers in the school feel pressure to meet accountability
standards associated with state-mandated testing.
Participant Position Implementation Variation
Outcomes
APW Lower
grade
teacher
Instead of just giving her
materials, I have also tried
to help her understand my
motivation and objectives in
why I use those things. (p.
4, L. 32)
We have identified
students and not only those
in need, but a lot of the
teachers have developed
their strategies to touch the
students in a variety of
ways whether you are
thinking of it as
multimodality, or
differentiation, or multiple
intelligences. I think that
that affects student
achievement (p. 4, L. 7)
AMD Upper
grade
teacher
As far as our school goes, I
think that our sixth grade
team manages our students
and with very little input
from the administration. We
pretty much have free
range. (p. 2)
ARH Upper
grade
teacher
I am constantly helping
those students who aren’t
meeting those expectations
through extra support, after
school or recess times, or
many times (p. 3, L. 22)
AOE Support
services
There is a lot of give and
take when it comes to the
instruction of these kids (p.
4, L. 8)
181
AAP Lower
grade
teacher
I think that there can be
leadership in instruction, but
I think that is mostly taken
on by certain teachers and at
grade levels. (p. 2, L. 39)
ACC Support
services
I would consider my
assistants colleagues and I
have certainly worked with
them and attempted to
influence them on how to
speak to their class, how to
instruct their class, what
techniques to use. That’s
something that I do on a
regular basis (p. 3, L. 42)
ADR Principal That whole mixed practice
thing that the fifth grade
teachers went to [a training]
…they have picked up, or
they are still continuing to
do that, so it is a part of the
culture of that grade level
and we’ve had very
excellent results in that and
I think it’s probably a result
of that [tailoring the
curriculum]. (p. 4, L. 15)
AKB Lower
grade
teacher
AMW Lower
grade
teacher
I see connection, a
relationship between the
teacher’s effort to manage
instruction and student
achievement. (p. 3, L. 28)
S4 Teachers,
support
services,
and
principal
Student achievement in the
school is strong because of
our involvement in the
curriculum and
instructional process
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This is a qualitative case study of two suburban elementary schools that have experienced consistent student achievement over the past few years, as evidenced by scores on standardized state tests. The study explores the effects on teacher leadership development when using a distributive leadership model in the school. A distributive leadership paradigm represents a novel and promising perspective in the area of school leadership. The study examined the roles of teachers, their functions,and their interactions and provided information on how leadership develops. To potentially maximize the depth, accuracy, and interpretation of the data collected,two sites with different leadership styles were chosen
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development
PDF
Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study
PDF
Bringing the 21st century into California schools: a case study
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
PDF
School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school
PDF
Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools
PDF
Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools
PDF
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
Professional development and its impact on teacher practice
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
Civic engagement: a case study of civic leadership in partnering with an urban public school district
PDF
Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jaimes, Ingrid J.
(author)
Core Title
Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/07/2009
Defense Date
05/21/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
distributed leadership,new school leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership models,Teacher Leadership
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kezar, Adrianna (
committee chair
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
), Wilson, Carol (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ijaimes@usc.edu,Ingridjj4@charter.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2527
Unique identifier
UC1426139
Identifier
etd-Jaimes-3058 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-181409 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2527 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Jaimes-3058.pdf
Dmrecord
181409
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jaimes, Ingrid J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
distributed leadership
new school leadership
school leadership models