Improving Schools Through
Teacher Leadership
Alma Harris and Daniel Muijs
Open University Press
Open University
Press McGraw-Hill Education McGraw-Hill House Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead
Berkshire
England
SL6 2QL
and Two Penn
Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA First published 2005
Copyright © Alma Harris and Daniel Muijs 2005
All rights
reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of
criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any for, or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of the publisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited.
Details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from
the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd of 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4LP.
A catalogue
record of this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0335 20882 7
(pb) 0335 20883 5 (hb)
Library of
Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data CIP data applied for
Typeset by YHT Ltd, London
Printed
in the UK by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall
Contents
Series editors’ preface vii
Acknowledgements xi
Introduction 1
Part 1: Teacher leadership:
theoretical background
1 Teacher leadership 13
2 Distributed
leadership 27
3 Teacher
leadership and school improvement 37
Part 2: Enhancing teacher
leadership
4 Building professional learning communities 47
5 Meaningful
professional development 57
6 Generating and
supporting teacher leadership 63
Part 3: Recent studies and evidence
7 Teacher leadership and teacher effectiveness 72
8 Teacher
leadership and differential effectiveness 81
9 Teacher-led school improvement: a research study 87
10 Successful
teacher leadership 100
11 Emergent teacher
leadership 108
12 Restricted teacher
leadership 114
vi Contents
Part 4: Future directions
for teacher leadership
13 Nurturing teacher leadership 123
14 Improving schools through teacher
leadership 129
References 141
Index 151
Teacher leadership: theoretical
background
Teacher leadership
Introduction
In the current climate,
there is still much interest in and desire for sustained school improvement. We
know a great deal about school improvement from the extensive research base.
The messages about how schools improve remain fairly consistent. It is clear
from the many school improvement studies that have been conducted that
leadership is a key factor in a school’s ability to improve. This form of
leadership has often been associated with the leadership of the headteacher or
principal and it has been assumed that this individual’s leadership ability or
skill is a critical factor in promoting school improvement, change and
development. In contrast to this position, others have argued that successful
school improvement is co-constructed and that leadership for school improvement
is a form of ‘constructivist leadership’ (Lambert 1998), where leadership is
primarily about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge
collectively and collaboratively. This constructivist approach to leadership
creates the opportunities to surface and mediate perceptions, to inquire about
and generate ideas together, to seek to reflect upon and make sense of work in
the light of shared beliefs and new information, and to create actions that
grow out of these new understandings. It is, in essence, teacher leadership in
action.
The evidence from the school improvement literature also indicates that
schools which are improving tend to be marked by a constant interchange of
professional dialogue, both formally and informally. Also, they have ways of
working that encourage teachers to work together towards shared goals. There is
a body of evidence that demonstrates that teachers work most effectively when
they are supported by other teachers and work
14 Improving schools through teacher leadership
together collegially.
Hopkins et al. (1994) note that ‘successful schools create collaborative
environments which encourages involvement, professional development, mutual
support and assistance in problem solving’ (p. 177).
Recent assessments of the
relationship between leadership and school improvement imply that giving others
real responsibility and developing others is the best way for a school to move
forward (Day et al. 2000). The evidence suggests that where this
distributed form of leadership is in place, there is greater potential for
building the internal capacity for change. In practice, distributed leadership
means giving teachers the opportunity to lead and to take responsibility for
the areas of change of most importance to the school. As will be highlighted
later, this form of leadership necessarily requires relinquishing the idea of
structure as control and viewing structure as the vehicle for empowering
others. For this approach to work requires a high degree of trust, as trust is
essential to support the leadership climate. As Evans (1998) notes: ‘Trust is
the essential link between leader and led, vital to people’s job, status
functions and loyalty, vital to fellowship. It is doubly important when
organisations are reaching rapid improvement, which requires exceptional effort
and competence, and doubly so again in organisations like schools that offer
few motivators’ (p. 183).
It is suggested therefore
that the type of leadership which leads to school improvement is not one that
is necessarily aligned to a formal leadership role or function, but is more of
a dynamic between individuals within an organization that is a catalyst for
change. In this sense, leadership is located between and among individuals
within an organization; it belongs to a broad group of people, including
non-teaching staff, parents and students, who all contribute to the school’s
distinctive culture and community. Throughout this book, the term ‘teacher
leadership’ is deliberately intended to encapsulate all staff engaged in supporting teaching and learning
processes, including non-teaching and support staff. This view of leadership
focuses on the relationships and the connections among individuals within a
school.
Although the quality of
teaching strongly influences pupil motivation and achievement, it has been
consistently argued that the quality of leadership matters in determining the
motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom (Fullan
2001). A preliminary glance at the leadership research literature, however,
reveals that it is largely premised upon individual impetus rather than
collective action and offers a singular view of leadership predominantly bound
up with headship. As Murphy (2000) notes, the ‘great man’ theory of leadership
prevails in spite of a groundswell towards leadership as empowerment,
transformation and community building. This may be because schools as
organizational structures remain
Teacher leadership 15
largely unchanged, equating
leadership with status, authority and position. One of the most congruent
findings from recent studies of effective leadership is that authority to lead
need not be located in the person of the leader but can be dispersed throughout
the school, between and among people (MacBeath 1998; Day et al. 2000;
Harris 2002b). In this sense, leadership is separated from person, role and
status and is primarily concerned with the relationships and the connections
among individuals within a school.
Leadership can be defined as
providing vision, direction and support towards a different and preferred state
– suggesting change. Thus, leadership, change and school improvement are
closely related. It could be said that leaders are change-makers and don’t
necessarily need to reside at the top of an organization. Louis and Miles’s
(1990) case studies of change efforts at five secondary schools and Hord and
Huling-Austin’s (1986) synthesis of change and facilitation activities in nine
primary schools suggest a number of things about successful school change.
Louis and Miles (1990) reported that successful change leaders consistently
articulated a vision for their schools so that everyone understood the vision;
most importantly, they shared influence, authority, responsibility and accountability
with the staff in shaping the vision so that there was shared ownership of the
vision. They also engaged in formal data collection, analysis, reporting and
transfer of data, for summative and formative evaluation purposes. They
coordinated and orchestrated the change effort, exhibiting enormous
persistence, tenacity and willingness to live with risks. Louis and Miles
(1990) observed that teacher leaders required a high tolerance for complexity
and ambiguity.
More recent studies have
pointed to the importance of cultivating a context in which change is valued
and the need to distribute leadership widely within the organization is
reinforced. In the USA, Canada and Australia, the notion of ‘distributed’
leadership is gaining popularity. This model of leadership implies a
redistribution of power and a realignment of authority within the organization.
It means creating the conditions in which people work together and learn
together, where they construct and refine meaning, leading to a shared purpose
or set of goals. Evidence would suggest that where such conditions are in
place, leadership is a much stronger internal driver for school improvement and
change (Hopkins 2001). In Britain and to some extent Europe, conventional
notions of leadership still tend to prevail, with an emphasis upon the
leadership of those at the apex of the organization. Leadership tends to be
associated with a formal role or responsibility and is generally viewed as a
singular rather than a collective endeavour. A preliminary glance at the
leadership research literature also reveals that leadership is largely premised
upon individual
16 Improving schools through
teacher leadership
impetus rather than collective action and a
singular view of leadership, predominantly bound up with headship, still
dominates.
As the limitations of
singular or individual leadership have become increasingly evident, there has
been a groundswell, particularly in the USA, Canada and Australia, towards
various forms of teacher leadership. In the USA, the number of teacher
leadership programmes and initiatives has grown strongly over the past decade
and the notion of teacher leadership is now widely accepted by practitioners
and researchers alike (Smylie 1995). Here teacher leadership is primarily
concerned with enhanced leadership roles and decision-making powers for
teachers. There is a sense of being on the edge of a new era of teacher
professionalism, which is currently being echoed around the world; for example,
in Australia in ‘Developing Teacher Leaders’ (Crowther et al. 2000) and in the UK in the Specialist Schools Trust ‘Young
Leaders Programme’ and in the ‘Teacher-led School Improvement’ work undertaken
by the University of Cambridge and the University of Canterbury, respectively
(Frost and Durrant 2002). All of these programmes have drawn support and
inspiration from a substantial body of North American work in the late 1980s
and 1990s focusing on educational reform and teacher professionalism (see, for
example, Lieberman 1988; Hargreaves 1991; Fullan 1993). This work suggests
that teacher leadership offers a radical departure from the traditional
understanding of school leadership for two reasons. First, because it equates
leadership with agency, focusing upon the relationships among people and
crossing organizational boundaries. Secondly, it sees leadership as not simply
being about a role or function but rather as a dynamic between individuals
within an organization.
Teacher leadership
The notion of teacher leadership is certainly
not new. Teachers have for a long time taken the roles of team leaders,
department heads, association leaders and curriculum developers. However in
these roles teachers have often served as ‘representatives’ of change rather
than ‘leaders’ who enact or initiate change. Recently, research on school
development and change has led to strong and compelling pleas for dramatically
different roles for teachers, including increased leadership roles. Such work
emphasizes the need for teachers to extend their sphere of influence beyond the
classroom and into school-wide leadership activities. This advocacy for teacher
professionalism and expanded leadership roles is premised on the belief that
as they are closest to the classroom, teachers can implement changes that make
a difference to learning and learners.
Teacher leadership 17
Studies
have also shown that teachers do not subscribe to traditional definitions of
leadership as ‘higher’ or ‘superior’ positions within the organizational
hierarchy. Instead, teachers view leadership as a collaborative effort, a
‘banding together’ with other teachers to promote professional development and
growth and the improvement of educational services (Troen and Boles 1992).
Today, through initiatives such as ‘Networked Learning Communities’, leadership
roles have begun to emerge with real opportunities for teachers to impact upon
educational change, without necessarily leaving the classroom. Teachers are now
serving as research colleagues, working as advisor-mentors to new teachers, and
facilitating professional development activities. They are also acting as
members of school-based leadership teams and leaders of change efforts.
But what exactly is meant by
teacher leadership? In essence, teacher leadership is a model of leadership in
which teaching staff at various levels within the organization have the
opportunity to lead (Harris and Lambert 2003). This model of leadership means
creating the conditions in which people work together and learn together, where
they construct and refine meaning, leading to a shared purpose or set of goals.
Teacher leadership is conceptualized as a set of behaviours and practices that
are undertaken collectively. It is primarily concerned with the relationships
and connections among individuals within a school. A key element in the model
of leadership proposed is that the nature and purpose of leadership is ‘the
ability of those within a school to work together, constructing meaning and
knowledge collectively and collaboratively’ (Lambert 1998: 5). Taking this
stance, leadership is a fluid and emergent rather than a fixed phenomenon
(Gronn 2000: 324). As Wheatley (2000) notes: ‘We have known for nearly half a
century that self-managed teams are far more productive than any other forms of
organising. There is a clear correlation between participation and
productivity. There is both a desire to participate more and strong evidence
that such participation leads to the effectiveness and productivity we crave’
(p. 2).
Teacher leadership has
implications for the division of labour within a school, particularly when the
tasks facing the organization are shared more widely. It also opens up the
possibility of all teachers becoming leaders at various times. It is this last
dimension that has most potency and potential for school improvement because it
is premised upon collaborative forms of working among teachers.
Wenger’s (1998) notion of
‘communities of practice’ is also particularly helpful in understanding
collaborative ways of working in schools. It suggests that individuals derive
their understanding of their work from the community of practice within which
they carry it out. The members of the community have a shared understanding of
the work and individuals are drawn into the community by a process of learning
where the boundaries
18 Improving schools through teacher leadership
are that define the
collection of tasks which make up the practice. There are two important points
about communities of practice. First, everyone is a member of more than one
community of practice. Teachers, for example, are part of a wider community of
teachers, which defines certain aspects of behaviour as legitimate, while also
being members of a school. Secondly, teachers are simultaneously members of a
school, of a subject area and an individual classroom. Through this multiple
membership, individuals transact the expectations of one community of practice
into others.
Wenger (1998) suggests that
individuals derive their identity from their membership of, and participation
in, communities of practice. He suggests that ‘communities of practice become
resources for organising our learning as well as contexts in which to manifest
our learning through an identity of participation’ (p. 273). Hence, a learning
community involves multiple forms of membership and participation.
Consequently, to view leadership as a collective activity offers greater
opportunity for organizational development, change and improvement (Harris
2001).
The terms ‘teacher leaders’
and ‘teacher leadership’ appear in the literature in a variety of contexts
(see Harris and Muijs 2003). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), for example, define
them in the following way: ‘teachers who are leaders lead within and beyond the
classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of teacher learners and
leaders, and influence others towards improved educational practice’ (p. 5).
Note, however, that they begin with ‘teachers who are leaders’, which suggests
that certain teachers are selected to undertake designated leadership roles;
this is only one of a number of possible interpretations of the idea of course.
At this stage, a rough hewn typology may be suggested. In some cases, a
specific ‘teacher leader’ role is assumed; in others, the expectation is that
teachers who already occupy a formal management position (middle managers) will
be the ones to exercise leadership. A further category is one which includes a
range of distinct professional development and research roles. Another category
is simply leadership exercised by teachers regardless of position or
designation. These categories are discussed in some detail below.
Lead teachers
Lead teachers are those
teachers who have been appointed to ‘teacher leader’ roles for specific
purposes. In both the USA and England, national reform initiatives have
increasingly focused on ‘the classroom level’, which has led to the appointment
of experienced practitioners to posts dedicated to improving colleagues’
performance. The work of these external change agents might include
organizational diagnosis and building collaborative relationships in schools
(Little 1990). The term ‘lead teachers’ is also used
Teacher leadership 19
to describe a form of
coaching that involves classroom observation. Little (1990) talks of
‘school-level instructional leadership teams’ in which the ‘lead teachers’
still retain a 60 per cent teaching commitment but the rest of the time is
spent observing teaching and giving feedback to teachers. For Lieberman (1988),
the role of the ‘teacher leader’ is part of ‘the second wave of school reform’,
which implies a thrust from the outside in.
More recently in England, a
large number of expert classroom practitioners have been recruited by local
education authorities (LEAs) to act as teaching and learning consultants with a
specific brief to implement the Key Stage 3 Strategy. The ‘advanced skills
teacher’ designation is another Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
scheme in which schools can appoint or designate expert practitioners who then
act as consultants for a proportion of their time. This development echoes the
extensive appointment by LEAs of advisory teachers or what, in the 1980s,
Biott and colleagues called ‘semi-detached teachers’ (Biott 1991). One of the
contributors to Biott’s book described himself as a ‘support teacher’ and
associated himself with the American literature on teacher leadership.
Subject leaders
It is increasingly the case
that heads of departments, subject leaders and subject coordinators are
expected to exercise leadership. Since 1998, there has been a radical shift in
the role and responsibilities of curriculum subject and departmental leaders.
The Subject Leader Standards represent a major redefinition of the role,
expectations and performance of leaders at departmental and subject level. The
standards highlight the importance of high-quality teaching and improved
standards of achievement (Teacher Training Agency 1998). They also acknowledge
the importance of ‘establishing high standards of teaching and learning in
their subject as well as playing a major role in the development of school
policy’ (p. 3).
Team leaders have a powerful
influence over classroom practices and are important gatekeepers to change and
development within their subject areas. The Subject Leader Standards
acknowledge the centrality of the subject leader in contributing to
whole-school policy and development. The overall purpose of the subject leader’s
role is to contribute to school improvement and increased standards of
performance through the provision of high-quality teaching within the subject
area. To achieve this, the subject leader has to lead and manage the curriculum
and to respond to the internal and external demands for accountability and
quality. All of these demands have to be met in the particular context of the
individual school and the community it serves.
Within a school the skills,
abilities and expertise of subject leaders will
20 Improving schools through teacher leadership
inevitably vary. Differences
exist between departments in terms of performance and effectiveness. However,
it is possible to develop and improve leadership at this level through the
provision of structured support. It has been shown that an optimum source of
support resides in other subject leaders or heads of department within the
school. By drawing upon the expertise and knowledge of those in middle
management positions in the same context, the possibility of improvement across
departments is significantly enhanced.
Consequently, the scope and
role of subject leaders has been extended quite dramatically. Subject and
departmental leaders are now responsible for formulating and implementing policies
for the subject or area of work, for devising short-, medium- and long-term
plans, for setting challenging targets, for promoting effective practice; and
for reviewing progress. These activities involve all the staff who contribute
to the subject area and will relate directly to the school’s vision, policies,
priorities and targets. Most importantly, subject and departmental leaders are
responsible for ensuring that the teaching within the subject area is
effective; that teaching is regularly and systematically monitored and
evaluated; that student targets are set; and that resources are used
efficiently.
While subject and
departmental leaders are very much in the front line, this does not necessarily
mean that they are automatically involved in school-level decision making.
Levels of involvement vary according to the management approach of senior staff
and the way in which both groups interact. To contribute to whole-school
development, subject and departmental leaders need to be participants in policy
development and strategic planning. This requires structural change, where a
formal ‘two-way’ equal relationship is established between middle and senior
management. It also requires cultural change, where subject or departmental
leaders are integrally involved in decision making and policy developments
within the school. As team leaders, their role is to foster trust and mutual
support within the team. Consequently, the challenge facing subject and departmental
leaders is how to foster a climate of change and innovation that leads to
improved learning outcomes for students
Coordinators
Coordinators are teachers
who have been designated as mentors, coordinators of continuing professional
development, special educational needs Coordinators (SENCOs) and facilitators
of action research. There are a variety of roles in which teachers are called
upon to support the professional learning of their colleagues. These include
the induction and men-toring of teachers new to the school and the coordination
of continuing professional development activities. In a minority of schools in
England,
Teacher leadership 21
some teachers are
designated as ‘research coordinator’, a role aimed at facilitating action
research. The Networked Learning Communities Initiative has led to the
development not only of research capacity in the participating schools, but
also to the development of the role of ‘school research coordinator’. There are
questions, however, about the extent to which teachers may be reluctant to
become involved in data-gathering activities in each others’ classrooms, seen
by some to be intrusive and too closely allied with inspection and performance
management.
Informal teacher
leadership
Informal teacher leadership
refers to the exercise of leadership by teachers regardless of position or
designation. This has also been referred to as ‘invisible leadership’ (Bascia
1997). This is a feature of a particular strand of research and development in
the UK that has sought to distinguish itself by emphasizing the capacity of all
teachers to engage in ‘teacher-led development work’ (Frost and Durrant 2002).
The model of support that Frost and Durrant promote depends on partnerships
with external agents rather than externally derived initiatives. For them:
It is not a matter of
delegation, direction or distribution of responsibility, but rather a matter
of teachers’ agency and their choice in initiating and sustaining change ...
Negotiation of personal development plans with colleagues ensures that they are
appropriate and realistic and that the development work is likely to be
supported. Systematic inquiry and classroom experimentation are key elements of
the development process, evidence being used strategically to improve learning
and teaching and to build capacity through collaborative development work.
(Frost and Durrant 2002: 3)
It may be argued that this category ought
properly to be labelled ‘informal leadership’:
Teachers exercise informal
leadership ... by sharing their expertise, volunteering for new projects and
bringing new ideas to the school ... by helping their colleagues to carry out
their classroom duties, and by assisting in the improvement of classroom
practice through the engagement of their colleagues in experimentation and the
examination of more powerful instructional techniques. Teachers attribute
leadership qualities, as well, to colleagues who accept responsibility for
their own professional growth, promote the school’s mission, and work for the
improvement of the school or school system.
(Leithwood et al. 1999:
117)
22 Improving schools through teacher leadership
The use of the term
‘informal’ in this context could be taken to mean simply the absence of a
formal position, but it is important to preserve the distinction between
activity that might be described as leadership by others and activity that is
planned and exercised deliberately by teachers. The defining characteristic
being that the teacher has chosen to act strategically to contribute to school
improvement (Frost and Durrant 2002).
As highlighted earlier, a particularly
significant shift in the school improvement field in the last few years has
been the burgeoning of network or collaborative initiatives premised upon
teachers leading innovation and change. Hargreaves (2004: 9) suggests that:
A network increases the pool
of ideas on which any member can draw and as one idea or practice is
transferred, the inevitable process of adaptation and adjustment to different
conditions is rich in potential for the practice to be incrementally improved
by the recipient and then fed back to the donor in a virtuous circle of
innovation and improvement. In other words, the networks extend and enlarge the
communities of practice with enormous potential benefits.
At
the present time there are over fifteen national policy networks or other
collaboratives, plus many other local networks, often set up between
universities, LEAs and schools. Some have been established with a particular
focus on improving the achievement of pupils in schools in more challenging
areas, some deliberately attempt to bridge the gap between schools in very
different circumstances (for example, schools in deprived areas with those in
much more affluent areas), and some take as part of their remit an attempt to
have primary (elementary) and secondary schools work more more closely
together, thus facilitating better transfer.
Many of these networks are
based upon a model of teacher enquiry and teacher leadership. As such, they
highlight the significantly increasing involvement of practitioners in research
and evidence-based activity. In this sense, they are based on an assumption
that external research cannot provide all of the answers to complex questions
of school improvement. This suggests that many of the answers reside within
teachers and school leaders, and collaborative enquiry and developing more
effective means of sharing and developing new knowledge between schools is
central to sustainable school improvement and, indeed, system-wide transformation.
The Networked Learning
Communities Initiative (Jackson 2000) involves clusters of schools working in
partnership with others to enhance the quality of learning at six levels:
pupil; teacher; leadership; the school as a professional learning community;
school-to-school; and, within this initiative, network to network. In placing
teachers, leaders and schools at the heart of innovation and knowledge creation
and using an enquiry model, it attempts to enable the development of local,
context-specific
Teacher leadership 23
practices and solutions that can be explained
and interpreted by schools in other contexts. It also reinforces the centrality
of teachers as leaders of innovation and development.
Roles and responsibilities
Several authors have provided definitions of
teacher leadership that clearly delineate the differences with traditional
leadership approaches. For example, Wasley (1991) defines teacher leadership as
‘the ability to encourage colleagues to change, to do things they wouldn’t
ordinarily consider without the influence of the leader’ (p. 32). In contrast
to traditional notions of leadership, teacher leadership is characterized by a
form of collective leadership in which teachers develop expertise by working
collaboratively (Boles and Troen 1994).
A number of different
roles have been suggested for teacher leaders that further explain the
distinctive nature of the leadership activity. Katzen-meyer and Moller (2001)
see teacher leadership as having three main facets:
. Leadership of students or other teachers: facilitator, coach, mentor, trainer, curriculum specialist,
creating new approaches, leading study groups.
. Leadership of operational tasks: keeping the school organized and moving towards its goals,
through roles as head of department, action researcher, member of task forces.
. Leadership through decision making or partnership: member of school improvement teams, member of committees,
instigator of partnerships with business, higher education institutions, LEAs and
parent–teacher associations.
Gehrke (1991) identifies quite similar functions of teacher leaders:
. continuously improving their own classroom teaching;
. organizing
and leading reviews of school practice;
. providing
curriculum development knowledge;
. participating
in in-school decision making;
. giving in-service training to colleagues; and
. participating
in the performance evaluation of teachers.
Harris (2002a) suggests
that there are four discernible and discrete dimensions of the teacher leadership
role. The first dimension concerns the way in which teachers translate the
principles of school improvement into the practices of individual classrooms.
This brokering role remains a central
responsibility for the teacher as leader. It ensures that links within schools
are secure and that opportunities for meaningful development among
24 Improving schools through teacher leadership
teachers are maximized. A
second dimension of the teacher leader role focuses upon participative leadership where all teachers feel part of the change or development and
have a sense of ownership. Teacher leaders may assist other teachers to cohere
around a particular development and to foster a more collaborative way of
working (Blase and Anderson 1995). They work with colleagues to shape school
improvement efforts and take some lead in guiding teachers towards a collective
goal. A third dimension of teacher leadership in school improvement is the mediating role. Teacher leaders are important sources of expertise and
information. They are able to draw critically upon additional resources and
expertise if required and to seek external assistance. Finally, a fourth and
possibly the most important dimension of the teacher leadership role is forging close relationships with individual teachers through which mutual learning
takes place.
Other writers have
identified further dimensions of the teacher leadership role, such as
undertaking action research (Ash and Persall 2000), instigating peer classroom
observation (Little 2000), or contributing to the establishment of a
collaborative culture in the school (Lieberman et al. 2000). Of these roles, those of mentoring,
induction and continual professional development of colleagues are considered
crucial (Sherrill 1999), as is developing collaborative relationships with
colleagues that allow new ideas and leadership to spread and impact on the
school as a whole (Little 2000).
Teacher leadership roles
have been identified as curriculum developers, bid writers, leaders of a school
improvement team, mentors of new or less experienced staff, and action
researchers with a strong link to the classroom. The important point emanating
from the literature is that teacher leaders are, in the first place, expert
teachers, who spend most of their time in the classroom but take on different
leadership roles at different times, following the principles of formative
leadership (Ash and Persall 2000). The literature asserts that the principal
reason for this is to transform schools into professional learning communities
(Katzenmeyer and Moller 2001) and to empower teachers to become involved
closely in decision making within the school, thus contributing to the
democratization of schools (Gehrke 1991). Teacher leaders should be able to work
collaboratively with peers, observing one another’s lessons and discussing
pedagogy.
Barth (1999) sees teacher
leadership extending beyond just collaborating or participating in decision
making. He views teacher leadership as fulfilling some of the functions
possibly undertaken by senior management, including:
. choosing textbooks and instructional materials;
. shaping
the curriculum;
. setting
standards for pupil behaviour;
. deciding
on tracking;
Teacher leadership 25
. designing staff development programmes; . setting promotion and retention policies; . deciding school budgets;
. evaluating
teacher performance;
. selecting
new teachers; and
. selecting
new administrators.
In this model, teacher
leaders play a major role in running the school and in taking major decisions.
Most other writers in the field, however, view teacher leaders as collaborators
with senior management in decision making on specific aspects of school policy
rather than replacing them (Gehrke 1991).
In one of the most
extensive studies on the work of teacher leaders, Lieberman et al. (2000)
focused on what teachers actually did when they assumed leadership positions
designed to provide assistance to other teachers. The authors found that the
work of lead teachers was varied and largely specific to the individual context
of the school. To be effective with their colleagues, lead teachers found it
necessary to learn a variety of leadership skills while on the job, including:
. building trust and developing rapport;
. diagnosing
organizational conditions;
. dealing
with processes;
. managing
the work; and
. building
skills and confidence in others.
The authors concluded that
restructuring school communities to incorporate leadership positions for
teachers necessitated teacher leaders taking certain actions. These included:
placing a non-judgmental value on providing assistance, modelling collegiality
as a mode of work, enhancing teachers’ self-esteem, using different approaches
to assistance, making provisions for continuous learning and support for
teachers at the school site, and encouraging others to provide leadership to
their peers.
Some studies have shown
that leadership positions can yield significant personal benefits to those
involved. Intellectual and professional growth and decreased isolation are
personal gains reported by teachers from their new leadership roles. Teachers
have also reported that their knowledge and skills in teaching increased
dramatically as a result of their involvement in leadership positions (Troen
and Boles 1992). New skills and knowledge also lead to increased confidence
among lead teachers and a stronger commitment to teaching. It has been shown
that under certain conditions lead teachers can be successful in facilitating
cooperation and collegiality more broadly among faculty members, thereby
decreasing the isolation many teachers experience (Hart 1995).
26 Improving schools through teacher leadership
Research
also suggests that problems often arise when teacher leadership roles are not
well defined (Hart 1995). When the responsibilities that come with leadership
are not well delineated, confusion results and tensions mount, not only for
lead teachers but also for those who work with them (i.e. administrators,
classroom teachers). At the same time, however, researchers point to the need
for lead teachers to participate in the definition and creation of their new
roles. Teacher leaders who are given the opportunity to create and shape their
own roles receive more support and experience greater success than those who
are less willing and able to take the initiative.
In summary, there are
several important things to highlight about teacher leadership. First, teacher
leadership is leadership as a distributed entity that requires the creation of
collegial norms among teachers that research has shown contributes to school
effectiveness, improvement and development. Secondly, teacher leadership means
giving teachers opportunities to lead, which research shows has a positive
influence upon the quality of relationships and teaching within the school.
Thirdly, at its most practical, teacher leadership allows teachers to work
together and provides them with a legitimate source of authority. Finally,
teacher leadership challenges many current assumptions about the nature of
leadership, the community within which it occurs and the relationships between
power, authority and influence. In summary, it involves ‘seeing leadership as
the outcome of the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (an emergent
property of the group) rather than just individual action’ (Bennett et al. 2003:
6). It is leadership that is distributed to the many rather than the few.
Chapter 2 discusses distributed leadership as the main theoretical framework
for teacher leadership.
Improving Schools Through
Teacher Leadership
Alma Harris and Daniel Muijs
Open University Press
Open University
Press McGraw-Hill Education McGraw-Hill House Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead
Berkshire
England
SL6 2QL
and Two Penn
Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA First published 2005
Copyright © Alma Harris and Daniel Muijs 2005
All rights
reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of
criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any for, or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of the publisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited.
Details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from
the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd of 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4LP.
A catalogue
record of this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0335 20882 7
(pb) 0335 20883 5 (hb)
Library of
Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data CIP data applied for
Typeset by YHT Ltd, London
Printed
in the UK by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall
Contents
Series editors’ preface vii
Acknowledgements xi
Introduction 1
Part 1: Teacher leadership:
theoretical background
1 Teacher leadership 13
2 Distributed
leadership 27
3 Teacher
leadership and school improvement 37
Part 2: Enhancing teacher
leadership
4 Building professional learning communities 47
5 Meaningful
professional development 57
6 Generating and
supporting teacher leadership 63
Part 3: Recent studies and evidence
7 Teacher leadership and teacher effectiveness 72
8 Teacher
leadership and differential effectiveness 81
9 Teacher-led school improvement: a research study 87
10 Successful
teacher leadership 100
11 Emergent teacher
leadership 108
12 Restricted teacher
leadership 114
vi Contents
Part 4: Future directions
for teacher leadership
13 Nurturing teacher leadership 123
14 Improving schools through teacher
leadership 129
References 141
Index 151
Teacher leadership: theoretical
background
Teacher leadership
Introduction
In the current climate,
there is still much interest in and desire for sustained school improvement. We
know a great deal about school improvement from the extensive research base.
The messages about how schools improve remain fairly consistent. It is clear
from the many school improvement studies that have been conducted that
leadership is a key factor in a school’s ability to improve. This form of
leadership has often been associated with the leadership of the headteacher or
principal and it has been assumed that this individual’s leadership ability or
skill is a critical factor in promoting school improvement, change and
development. In contrast to this position, others have argued that successful
school improvement is co-constructed and that leadership for school improvement
is a form of ‘constructivist leadership’ (Lambert 1998), where leadership is
primarily about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge
collectively and collaboratively. This constructivist approach to leadership
creates the opportunities to surface and mediate perceptions, to inquire about
and generate ideas together, to seek to reflect upon and make sense of work in
the light of shared beliefs and new information, and to create actions that
grow out of these new understandings. It is, in essence, teacher leadership in
action.
The evidence from the school improvement literature also indicates that
schools which are improving tend to be marked by a constant interchange of
professional dialogue, both formally and informally. Also, they have ways of
working that encourage teachers to work together towards shared goals. There is
a body of evidence that demonstrates that teachers work most effectively when
they are supported by other teachers and work
14 Improving schools through teacher leadership
together collegially.
Hopkins et al. (1994) note that ‘successful schools create collaborative
environments which encourages involvement, professional development, mutual
support and assistance in problem solving’ (p. 177).
Recent assessments of the
relationship between leadership and school improvement imply that giving others
real responsibility and developing others is the best way for a school to move
forward (Day et al. 2000). The evidence suggests that where this
distributed form of leadership is in place, there is greater potential for
building the internal capacity for change. In practice, distributed leadership
means giving teachers the opportunity to lead and to take responsibility for
the areas of change of most importance to the school. As will be highlighted
later, this form of leadership necessarily requires relinquishing the idea of
structure as control and viewing structure as the vehicle for empowering
others. For this approach to work requires a high degree of trust, as trust is
essential to support the leadership climate. As Evans (1998) notes: ‘Trust is
the essential link between leader and led, vital to people’s job, status
functions and loyalty, vital to fellowship. It is doubly important when
organisations are reaching rapid improvement, which requires exceptional effort
and competence, and doubly so again in organisations like schools that offer
few motivators’ (p. 183).
It is suggested therefore
that the type of leadership which leads to school improvement is not one that
is necessarily aligned to a formal leadership role or function, but is more of
a dynamic between individuals within an organization that is a catalyst for
change. In this sense, leadership is located between and among individuals
within an organization; it belongs to a broad group of people, including
non-teaching staff, parents and students, who all contribute to the school’s
distinctive culture and community. Throughout this book, the term ‘teacher
leadership’ is deliberately intended to encapsulate all staff engaged in supporting teaching and learning
processes, including non-teaching and support staff. This view of leadership
focuses on the relationships and the connections among individuals within a
school.
Although the quality of
teaching strongly influences pupil motivation and achievement, it has been
consistently argued that the quality of leadership matters in determining the
motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom (Fullan
2001). A preliminary glance at the leadership research literature, however,
reveals that it is largely premised upon individual impetus rather than
collective action and offers a singular view of leadership predominantly bound
up with headship. As Murphy (2000) notes, the ‘great man’ theory of leadership
prevails in spite of a groundswell towards leadership as empowerment,
transformation and community building. This may be because schools as
organizational structures remain
Teacher leadership 15
largely unchanged, equating
leadership with status, authority and position. One of the most congruent
findings from recent studies of effective leadership is that authority to lead
need not be located in the person of the leader but can be dispersed throughout
the school, between and among people (MacBeath 1998; Day et al. 2000;
Harris 2002b). In this sense, leadership is separated from person, role and
status and is primarily concerned with the relationships and the connections
among individuals within a school.
Leadership can be defined as
providing vision, direction and support towards a different and preferred state
– suggesting change. Thus, leadership, change and school improvement are
closely related. It could be said that leaders are change-makers and don’t
necessarily need to reside at the top of an organization. Louis and Miles’s
(1990) case studies of change efforts at five secondary schools and Hord and
Huling-Austin’s (1986) synthesis of change and facilitation activities in nine
primary schools suggest a number of things about successful school change.
Louis and Miles (1990) reported that successful change leaders consistently
articulated a vision for their schools so that everyone understood the vision;
most importantly, they shared influence, authority, responsibility and accountability
with the staff in shaping the vision so that there was shared ownership of the
vision. They also engaged in formal data collection, analysis, reporting and
transfer of data, for summative and formative evaluation purposes. They
coordinated and orchestrated the change effort, exhibiting enormous
persistence, tenacity and willingness to live with risks. Louis and Miles
(1990) observed that teacher leaders required a high tolerance for complexity
and ambiguity.
More recent studies have
pointed to the importance of cultivating a context in which change is valued
and the need to distribute leadership widely within the organization is
reinforced. In the USA, Canada and Australia, the notion of ‘distributed’
leadership is gaining popularity. This model of leadership implies a
redistribution of power and a realignment of authority within the organization.
It means creating the conditions in which people work together and learn
together, where they construct and refine meaning, leading to a shared purpose
or set of goals. Evidence would suggest that where such conditions are in
place, leadership is a much stronger internal driver for school improvement and
change (Hopkins 2001). In Britain and to some extent Europe, conventional
notions of leadership still tend to prevail, with an emphasis upon the
leadership of those at the apex of the organization. Leadership tends to be
associated with a formal role or responsibility and is generally viewed as a
singular rather than a collective endeavour. A preliminary glance at the
leadership research literature also reveals that leadership is largely premised
upon individual
16 Improving schools through
teacher leadership
impetus rather than collective action and a
singular view of leadership, predominantly bound up with headship, still
dominates.
As the limitations of
singular or individual leadership have become increasingly evident, there has
been a groundswell, particularly in the USA, Canada and Australia, towards
various forms of teacher leadership. In the USA, the number of teacher
leadership programmes and initiatives has grown strongly over the past decade
and the notion of teacher leadership is now widely accepted by practitioners
and researchers alike (Smylie 1995). Here teacher leadership is primarily
concerned with enhanced leadership roles and decision-making powers for
teachers. There is a sense of being on the edge of a new era of teacher
professionalism, which is currently being echoed around the world; for example,
in Australia in ‘Developing Teacher Leaders’ (Crowther et al. 2000) and in the UK in the Specialist Schools Trust ‘Young
Leaders Programme’ and in the ‘Teacher-led School Improvement’ work undertaken
by the University of Cambridge and the University of Canterbury, respectively
(Frost and Durrant 2002). All of these programmes have drawn support and
inspiration from a substantial body of North American work in the late 1980s
and 1990s focusing on educational reform and teacher professionalism (see, for
example, Lieberman 1988; Hargreaves 1991; Fullan 1993). This work suggests
that teacher leadership offers a radical departure from the traditional
understanding of school leadership for two reasons. First, because it equates
leadership with agency, focusing upon the relationships among people and
crossing organizational boundaries. Secondly, it sees leadership as not simply
being about a role or function but rather as a dynamic between individuals
within an organization.
Teacher leadership
The notion of teacher leadership is certainly
not new. Teachers have for a long time taken the roles of team leaders,
department heads, association leaders and curriculum developers. However in
these roles teachers have often served as ‘representatives’ of change rather
than ‘leaders’ who enact or initiate change. Recently, research on school
development and change has led to strong and compelling pleas for dramatically
different roles for teachers, including increased leadership roles. Such work
emphasizes the need for teachers to extend their sphere of influence beyond the
classroom and into school-wide leadership activities. This advocacy for teacher
professionalism and expanded leadership roles is premised on the belief that
as they are closest to the classroom, teachers can implement changes that make
a difference to learning and learners.
Teacher leadership 17
Studies
have also shown that teachers do not subscribe to traditional definitions of
leadership as ‘higher’ or ‘superior’ positions within the organizational
hierarchy. Instead, teachers view leadership as a collaborative effort, a
‘banding together’ with other teachers to promote professional development and
growth and the improvement of educational services (Troen and Boles 1992).
Today, through initiatives such as ‘Networked Learning Communities’, leadership
roles have begun to emerge with real opportunities for teachers to impact upon
educational change, without necessarily leaving the classroom. Teachers are now
serving as research colleagues, working as advisor-mentors to new teachers, and
facilitating professional development activities. They are also acting as
members of school-based leadership teams and leaders of change efforts.
But what exactly is meant by
teacher leadership? In essence, teacher leadership is a model of leadership in
which teaching staff at various levels within the organization have the
opportunity to lead (Harris and Lambert 2003). This model of leadership means
creating the conditions in which people work together and learn together, where
they construct and refine meaning, leading to a shared purpose or set of goals.
Teacher leadership is conceptualized as a set of behaviours and practices that
are undertaken collectively. It is primarily concerned with the relationships
and connections among individuals within a school. A key element in the model
of leadership proposed is that the nature and purpose of leadership is ‘the
ability of those within a school to work together, constructing meaning and
knowledge collectively and collaboratively’ (Lambert 1998: 5). Taking this
stance, leadership is a fluid and emergent rather than a fixed phenomenon
(Gronn 2000: 324). As Wheatley (2000) notes: ‘We have known for nearly half a
century that self-managed teams are far more productive than any other forms of
organising. There is a clear correlation between participation and
productivity. There is both a desire to participate more and strong evidence
that such participation leads to the effectiveness and productivity we crave’
(p. 2).
Teacher leadership has
implications for the division of labour within a school, particularly when the
tasks facing the organization are shared more widely. It also opens up the
possibility of all teachers becoming leaders at various times. It is this last
dimension that has most potency and potential for school improvement because it
is premised upon collaborative forms of working among teachers.
Wenger’s (1998) notion of
‘communities of practice’ is also particularly helpful in understanding
collaborative ways of working in schools. It suggests that individuals derive
their understanding of their work from the community of practice within which
they carry it out. The members of the community have a shared understanding of
the work and individuals are drawn into the community by a process of learning
where the boundaries
18 Improving schools through teacher leadership
are that define the
collection of tasks which make up the practice. There are two important points
about communities of practice. First, everyone is a member of more than one
community of practice. Teachers, for example, are part of a wider community of
teachers, which defines certain aspects of behaviour as legitimate, while also
being members of a school. Secondly, teachers are simultaneously members of a
school, of a subject area and an individual classroom. Through this multiple
membership, individuals transact the expectations of one community of practice
into others.
Wenger (1998) suggests that
individuals derive their identity from their membership of, and participation
in, communities of practice. He suggests that ‘communities of practice become
resources for organising our learning as well as contexts in which to manifest
our learning through an identity of participation’ (p. 273). Hence, a learning
community involves multiple forms of membership and participation.
Consequently, to view leadership as a collective activity offers greater
opportunity for organizational development, change and improvement (Harris
2001).
The terms ‘teacher leaders’
and ‘teacher leadership’ appear in the literature in a variety of contexts
(see Harris and Muijs 2003). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), for example, define
them in the following way: ‘teachers who are leaders lead within and beyond the
classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of teacher learners and
leaders, and influence others towards improved educational practice’ (p. 5).
Note, however, that they begin with ‘teachers who are leaders’, which suggests
that certain teachers are selected to undertake designated leadership roles;
this is only one of a number of possible interpretations of the idea of course.
At this stage, a rough hewn typology may be suggested. In some cases, a
specific ‘teacher leader’ role is assumed; in others, the expectation is that
teachers who already occupy a formal management position (middle managers) will
be the ones to exercise leadership. A further category is one which includes a
range of distinct professional development and research roles. Another category
is simply leadership exercised by teachers regardless of position or
designation. These categories are discussed in some detail below.
Lead teachers
Lead teachers are those
teachers who have been appointed to ‘teacher leader’ roles for specific
purposes. In both the USA and England, national reform initiatives have
increasingly focused on ‘the classroom level’, which has led to the appointment
of experienced practitioners to posts dedicated to improving colleagues’
performance. The work of these external change agents might include
organizational diagnosis and building collaborative relationships in schools
(Little 1990). The term ‘lead teachers’ is also used
Teacher leadership 19
to describe a form of
coaching that involves classroom observation. Little (1990) talks of
‘school-level instructional leadership teams’ in which the ‘lead teachers’
still retain a 60 per cent teaching commitment but the rest of the time is
spent observing teaching and giving feedback to teachers. For Lieberman (1988),
the role of the ‘teacher leader’ is part of ‘the second wave of school reform’,
which implies a thrust from the outside in.
More recently in England, a
large number of expert classroom practitioners have been recruited by local
education authorities (LEAs) to act as teaching and learning consultants with a
specific brief to implement the Key Stage 3 Strategy. The ‘advanced skills
teacher’ designation is another Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
scheme in which schools can appoint or designate expert practitioners who then
act as consultants for a proportion of their time. This development echoes the
extensive appointment by LEAs of advisory teachers or what, in the 1980s,
Biott and colleagues called ‘semi-detached teachers’ (Biott 1991). One of the
contributors to Biott’s book described himself as a ‘support teacher’ and
associated himself with the American literature on teacher leadership.
Subject leaders
It is increasingly the case
that heads of departments, subject leaders and subject coordinators are
expected to exercise leadership. Since 1998, there has been a radical shift in
the role and responsibilities of curriculum subject and departmental leaders.
The Subject Leader Standards represent a major redefinition of the role,
expectations and performance of leaders at departmental and subject level. The
standards highlight the importance of high-quality teaching and improved
standards of achievement (Teacher Training Agency 1998). They also acknowledge
the importance of ‘establishing high standards of teaching and learning in
their subject as well as playing a major role in the development of school
policy’ (p. 3).
Team leaders have a powerful
influence over classroom practices and are important gatekeepers to change and
development within their subject areas. The Subject Leader Standards
acknowledge the centrality of the subject leader in contributing to
whole-school policy and development. The overall purpose of the subject leader’s
role is to contribute to school improvement and increased standards of
performance through the provision of high-quality teaching within the subject
area. To achieve this, the subject leader has to lead and manage the curriculum
and to respond to the internal and external demands for accountability and
quality. All of these demands have to be met in the particular context of the
individual school and the community it serves.
Within a school the skills,
abilities and expertise of subject leaders will
20 Improving schools through teacher leadership
inevitably vary. Differences
exist between departments in terms of performance and effectiveness. However,
it is possible to develop and improve leadership at this level through the
provision of structured support. It has been shown that an optimum source of
support resides in other subject leaders or heads of department within the
school. By drawing upon the expertise and knowledge of those in middle
management positions in the same context, the possibility of improvement across
departments is significantly enhanced.
Consequently, the scope and
role of subject leaders has been extended quite dramatically. Subject and
departmental leaders are now responsible for formulating and implementing policies
for the subject or area of work, for devising short-, medium- and long-term
plans, for setting challenging targets, for promoting effective practice; and
for reviewing progress. These activities involve all the staff who contribute
to the subject area and will relate directly to the school’s vision, policies,
priorities and targets. Most importantly, subject and departmental leaders are
responsible for ensuring that the teaching within the subject area is
effective; that teaching is regularly and systematically monitored and
evaluated; that student targets are set; and that resources are used
efficiently.
While subject and
departmental leaders are very much in the front line, this does not necessarily
mean that they are automatically involved in school-level decision making.
Levels of involvement vary according to the management approach of senior staff
and the way in which both groups interact. To contribute to whole-school
development, subject and departmental leaders need to be participants in policy
development and strategic planning. This requires structural change, where a
formal ‘two-way’ equal relationship is established between middle and senior
management. It also requires cultural change, where subject or departmental
leaders are integrally involved in decision making and policy developments
within the school. As team leaders, their role is to foster trust and mutual
support within the team. Consequently, the challenge facing subject and departmental
leaders is how to foster a climate of change and innovation that leads to
improved learning outcomes for students
Coordinators
Coordinators are teachers
who have been designated as mentors, coordinators of continuing professional
development, special educational needs Coordinators (SENCOs) and facilitators
of action research. There are a variety of roles in which teachers are called
upon to support the professional learning of their colleagues. These include
the induction and men-toring of teachers new to the school and the coordination
of continuing professional development activities. In a minority of schools in
England,
Teacher leadership 21
some teachers are
designated as ‘research coordinator’, a role aimed at facilitating action
research. The Networked Learning Communities Initiative has led to the
development not only of research capacity in the participating schools, but
also to the development of the role of ‘school research coordinator’. There are
questions, however, about the extent to which teachers may be reluctant to
become involved in data-gathering activities in each others’ classrooms, seen
by some to be intrusive and too closely allied with inspection and performance
management.
Informal teacher
leadership
Informal teacher leadership
refers to the exercise of leadership by teachers regardless of position or
designation. This has also been referred to as ‘invisible leadership’ (Bascia
1997). This is a feature of a particular strand of research and development in
the UK that has sought to distinguish itself by emphasizing the capacity of all
teachers to engage in ‘teacher-led development work’ (Frost and Durrant 2002).
The model of support that Frost and Durrant promote depends on partnerships
with external agents rather than externally derived initiatives. For them:
It is not a matter of
delegation, direction or distribution of responsibility, but rather a matter
of teachers’ agency and their choice in initiating and sustaining change ...
Negotiation of personal development plans with colleagues ensures that they are
appropriate and realistic and that the development work is likely to be
supported. Systematic inquiry and classroom experimentation are key elements of
the development process, evidence being used strategically to improve learning
and teaching and to build capacity through collaborative development work.
(Frost and Durrant 2002: 3)
It may be argued that this category ought
properly to be labelled ‘informal leadership’:
Teachers exercise informal
leadership ... by sharing their expertise, volunteering for new projects and
bringing new ideas to the school ... by helping their colleagues to carry out
their classroom duties, and by assisting in the improvement of classroom
practice through the engagement of their colleagues in experimentation and the
examination of more powerful instructional techniques. Teachers attribute
leadership qualities, as well, to colleagues who accept responsibility for
their own professional growth, promote the school’s mission, and work for the
improvement of the school or school system.
(Leithwood et al. 1999:
117)
22 Improving schools through teacher leadership
The use of the term
‘informal’ in this context could be taken to mean simply the absence of a
formal position, but it is important to preserve the distinction between
activity that might be described as leadership by others and activity that is
planned and exercised deliberately by teachers. The defining characteristic
being that the teacher has chosen to act strategically to contribute to school
improvement (Frost and Durrant 2002).
As highlighted earlier, a particularly
significant shift in the school improvement field in the last few years has
been the burgeoning of network or collaborative initiatives premised upon
teachers leading innovation and change. Hargreaves (2004: 9) suggests that:
A network increases the pool
of ideas on which any member can draw and as one idea or practice is
transferred, the inevitable process of adaptation and adjustment to different
conditions is rich in potential for the practice to be incrementally improved
by the recipient and then fed back to the donor in a virtuous circle of
innovation and improvement. In other words, the networks extend and enlarge the
communities of practice with enormous potential benefits.
At
the present time there are over fifteen national policy networks or other
collaboratives, plus many other local networks, often set up between
universities, LEAs and schools. Some have been established with a particular
focus on improving the achievement of pupils in schools in more challenging
areas, some deliberately attempt to bridge the gap between schools in very
different circumstances (for example, schools in deprived areas with those in
much more affluent areas), and some take as part of their remit an attempt to
have primary (elementary) and secondary schools work more more closely
together, thus facilitating better transfer.
Many of these networks are
based upon a model of teacher enquiry and teacher leadership. As such, they
highlight the significantly increasing involvement of practitioners in research
and evidence-based activity. In this sense, they are based on an assumption
that external research cannot provide all of the answers to complex questions
of school improvement. This suggests that many of the answers reside within
teachers and school leaders, and collaborative enquiry and developing more
effective means of sharing and developing new knowledge between schools is
central to sustainable school improvement and, indeed, system-wide transformation.
The Networked Learning
Communities Initiative (Jackson 2000) involves clusters of schools working in
partnership with others to enhance the quality of learning at six levels:
pupil; teacher; leadership; the school as a professional learning community;
school-to-school; and, within this initiative, network to network. In placing
teachers, leaders and schools at the heart of innovation and knowledge creation
and using an enquiry model, it attempts to enable the development of local,
context-specific
Teacher leadership 23
practices and solutions that can be explained
and interpreted by schools in other contexts. It also reinforces the centrality
of teachers as leaders of innovation and development.
Roles and responsibilities
Several authors have provided definitions of
teacher leadership that clearly delineate the differences with traditional
leadership approaches. For example, Wasley (1991) defines teacher leadership as
‘the ability to encourage colleagues to change, to do things they wouldn’t
ordinarily consider without the influence of the leader’ (p. 32). In contrast
to traditional notions of leadership, teacher leadership is characterized by a
form of collective leadership in which teachers develop expertise by working
collaboratively (Boles and Troen 1994).
A number of different
roles have been suggested for teacher leaders that further explain the
distinctive nature of the leadership activity. Katzen-meyer and Moller (2001)
see teacher leadership as having three main facets:
. Leadership of students or other teachers: facilitator, coach, mentor, trainer, curriculum specialist,
creating new approaches, leading study groups.
. Leadership of operational tasks: keeping the school organized and moving towards its goals,
through roles as head of department, action researcher, member of task forces.
. Leadership through decision making or partnership: member of school improvement teams, member of committees,
instigator of partnerships with business, higher education institutions, LEAs and
parent–teacher associations.
Gehrke (1991) identifies quite similar functions of teacher leaders:
. continuously improving their own classroom teaching;
. organizing
and leading reviews of school practice;
. providing
curriculum development knowledge;
. participating
in in-school decision making;
. giving in-service training to colleagues; and
. participating
in the performance evaluation of teachers.
Harris (2002a) suggests
that there are four discernible and discrete dimensions of the teacher leadership
role. The first dimension concerns the way in which teachers translate the
principles of school improvement into the practices of individual classrooms.
This brokering role remains a central
responsibility for the teacher as leader. It ensures that links within schools
are secure and that opportunities for meaningful development among
24 Improving schools through teacher leadership
teachers are maximized. A
second dimension of the teacher leader role focuses upon participative leadership where all teachers feel part of the change or development and
have a sense of ownership. Teacher leaders may assist other teachers to cohere
around a particular development and to foster a more collaborative way of
working (Blase and Anderson 1995). They work with colleagues to shape school
improvement efforts and take some lead in guiding teachers towards a collective
goal. A third dimension of teacher leadership in school improvement is the mediating role. Teacher leaders are important sources of expertise and
information. They are able to draw critically upon additional resources and
expertise if required and to seek external assistance. Finally, a fourth and
possibly the most important dimension of the teacher leadership role is forging close relationships with individual teachers through which mutual learning
takes place.
Other writers have
identified further dimensions of the teacher leadership role, such as
undertaking action research (Ash and Persall 2000), instigating peer classroom
observation (Little 2000), or contributing to the establishment of a
collaborative culture in the school (Lieberman et al. 2000). Of these roles, those of mentoring,
induction and continual professional development of colleagues are considered
crucial (Sherrill 1999), as is developing collaborative relationships with
colleagues that allow new ideas and leadership to spread and impact on the
school as a whole (Little 2000).
Teacher leadership roles
have been identified as curriculum developers, bid writers, leaders of a school
improvement team, mentors of new or less experienced staff, and action
researchers with a strong link to the classroom. The important point emanating
from the literature is that teacher leaders are, in the first place, expert
teachers, who spend most of their time in the classroom but take on different
leadership roles at different times, following the principles of formative
leadership (Ash and Persall 2000). The literature asserts that the principal
reason for this is to transform schools into professional learning communities
(Katzenmeyer and Moller 2001) and to empower teachers to become involved
closely in decision making within the school, thus contributing to the
democratization of schools (Gehrke 1991). Teacher leaders should be able to work
collaboratively with peers, observing one another’s lessons and discussing
pedagogy.
Barth (1999) sees teacher
leadership extending beyond just collaborating or participating in decision
making. He views teacher leadership as fulfilling some of the functions
possibly undertaken by senior management, including:
. choosing textbooks and instructional materials;
. shaping
the curriculum;
. setting
standards for pupil behaviour;
. deciding
on tracking;
Teacher leadership 25
. designing staff development programmes; . setting promotion and retention policies; . deciding school budgets;
. evaluating
teacher performance;
. selecting
new teachers; and
. selecting
new administrators.
In this model, teacher
leaders play a major role in running the school and in taking major decisions.
Most other writers in the field, however, view teacher leaders as collaborators
with senior management in decision making on specific aspects of school policy
rather than replacing them (Gehrke 1991).
In one of the most
extensive studies on the work of teacher leaders, Lieberman et al. (2000)
focused on what teachers actually did when they assumed leadership positions
designed to provide assistance to other teachers. The authors found that the
work of lead teachers was varied and largely specific to the individual context
of the school. To be effective with their colleagues, lead teachers found it
necessary to learn a variety of leadership skills while on the job, including:
. building trust and developing rapport;
. diagnosing
organizational conditions;
. dealing
with processes;
. managing
the work; and
. building
skills and confidence in others.
The authors concluded that
restructuring school communities to incorporate leadership positions for
teachers necessitated teacher leaders taking certain actions. These included:
placing a non-judgmental value on providing assistance, modelling collegiality
as a mode of work, enhancing teachers’ self-esteem, using different approaches
to assistance, making provisions for continuous learning and support for
teachers at the school site, and encouraging others to provide leadership to
their peers.
Some studies have shown
that leadership positions can yield significant personal benefits to those
involved. Intellectual and professional growth and decreased isolation are
personal gains reported by teachers from their new leadership roles. Teachers
have also reported that their knowledge and skills in teaching increased
dramatically as a result of their involvement in leadership positions (Troen
and Boles 1992). New skills and knowledge also lead to increased confidence
among lead teachers and a stronger commitment to teaching. It has been shown
that under certain conditions lead teachers can be successful in facilitating
cooperation and collegiality more broadly among faculty members, thereby
decreasing the isolation many teachers experience (Hart 1995).
26 Improving schools through teacher leadership
Research
also suggests that problems often arise when teacher leadership roles are not
well defined (Hart 1995). When the responsibilities that come with leadership
are not well delineated, confusion results and tensions mount, not only for
lead teachers but also for those who work with them (i.e. administrators,
classroom teachers). At the same time, however, researchers point to the need
for lead teachers to participate in the definition and creation of their new
roles. Teacher leaders who are given the opportunity to create and shape their
own roles receive more support and experience greater success than those who
are less willing and able to take the initiative.
In summary, there are
several important things to highlight about teacher leadership. First, teacher
leadership is leadership as a distributed entity that requires the creation of
collegial norms among teachers that research has shown contributes to school
effectiveness, improvement and development. Secondly, teacher leadership means
giving teachers opportunities to lead, which research shows has a positive
influence upon the quality of relationships and teaching within the school.
Thirdly, at its most practical, teacher leadership allows teachers to work
together and provides them with a legitimate source of authority. Finally,
teacher leadership challenges many current assumptions about the nature of
leadership, the community within which it occurs and the relationships between
power, authority and influence. In summary, it involves ‘seeing leadership as
the outcome of the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (an emergent
property of the group) rather than just individual action’ (Bennett et al. 2003:
6). It is leadership that is distributed to the many rather than the few.
Chapter 2 discusses distributed leadership as the main theoretical framework
for teacher leadership.
