BY EMILY SINTZ
“Leadership
is not the private reserve of a few, but a process that ordinary
people use when they are bringing forth the best from themselves
and from others.”
(Kouzes and Posner, 1996)
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
Today, particularly in New York City and other big-city school districts,
there is an increasing need for new principals. This problem is exacerbated
in urban areas, in particular, given the lure of higher suburban salaries
for administrators, along with the even greater need for new leadership
created by the small schools movement.
In response to
this need, there has been a growing investment in, and publicity for,
such fast-track preparation programs as the Leadership Academy in
New York City. The natural targets for these programs are most likely
teachers who have taken on leadership roles within their schools.
This raises two important concerns. First, while teachers are increasingly
taking on (often unacknowledged) leadership responsibilities within
their schools, there is a great reluctance among many teachers to
leave their classroom and jump on the administration bandwagon. Not
only do teachers not want to give up teaching, but given the ever-expanding
job description of administrators, many teachers see the job as too
stressful or demanding, and consider the compensation insufficient
compared to these responsibilities. NYU Professor Gary Anderson and
others have noted the paradox that has been created: while the role
of principal has been expanded to include all of the characteristics
we think a good principal should embody, the result has been that
nobody wants to take on the job.
Thus, the demand
for traditional principal governance goes unmet or filled by persons
lacking educational experience. On the other hand, if these programs
are successful in recruiting teachers away from instruction, our school
systems, already plagued by significant issues of teacher recruitment
and retention, suffer a loss of experienced, effective pedagogues.
Concurrently,
there is an increasing trend toward alternative models of school management
within which teachers assume various leadership roles while still
remaining in the classroom. These options vary greatly in title (“teacher
leadership”, “shared decision making”, “distributive
leadership”) and even more extensively in definition. Yet, while
these models have not necessarily evolved entirely in response to
the needs outlined above, they could be viewed as a possible solution
to the principal shortage. Thus, I felt it important to examine them
more closely, particularly looking at teachers’ perceptions
of their effects, both positive and negative, on their own practice
and influence within their school settings.
RATIONALE
FOR STUDY
As a teacher who has taken on a variety of leadership roles myself,
and is continually considering shifting to full-time administration,
I understand the dilemma many teachers face – the competing
desires of wanting to participate in school leadership while also
feeling connected and committed to remaining in the classroom. And
I have seen this repeatedly experienced by numerous friends and colleagues
who are considered teacher leaders in their schools. Even teachers
who have become principals are often the ones to say, “I never
thought I’d become a principal” or “I still miss
the classroom.”
Given this dilemma,
my interest has been in exploring alternative prototypes of leadership,
through which teachers could take on administrative roles while still
remaining, at least part-time, in the classroom. Thus, I began my
initial research with the question of “How can we build
effective teacher leadership of schools without sacrificing classroom
practice?”
Having worked
in two schools with models of shared leadership, I also wanted to
investigate teachers’ views of these models, specifically in
terms of their own definitions of distributive leadership and its
perceived effects on their feelings of efficacy and professionalism.
Additionally, I was interested in surveying teachers’ views
on the relationship between their leadership roles and issues of power,
in order to examine whether current teacher leadership responsibilities
translated into real decision-making power. Thus, I expanded my initial
inquiry by looking at the following question: “How do teachers
view their own leadership roles within the context of a shared leadership
model of school governance?”
Ultimately, my
objective was to uncover the necessary conditions for cultivating
effective alternatives for meeting the leadership demands of schools
without forcing teachers to choose between the responsibilities of
leadership and classroom practice. In particular, given the dichotomy
created by the coexistence of an increasing pool of talented teacher
leaders in this country and an unmet demand for principal leadership,
I felt that examining both teacher leadership and shared leadership
models could shed some important light on new solutions to the issue
of school governance.
RESEARCH
My research was prompted by studies focusing on three main areas:
(1) teachers’ reluctance to become administrators in light of
the growing principal shortage; (2) the increasing shift toward teacher
leadership and various models of distributive management of schools;
and (3) the effects of teacher leadership on classroom practice, teachers’
feelings of professionalism, and ultimately student performance.
A Shortage
of Traditional Leadership
School systems across the country are facing, or are expecting to
face, dramatic administrative shortages. According to the National
Conference of State Legislatures (2002), the number of administrative
positions is expected to grow between 10 and 20 percent by the year
2008, in part due to the aging cadre of principals, with 40% of current
principals expected to retire during the same time period. Another
survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals
(2003) found that 66 percent of current principals said they planned
to retire by 2012.
This problem
is particularly extensive in urban areas, like New York City and Los
Angeles, where annual turnover rates among administrators can be as
high as 20 percent (Gates 2003). For example, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures (2002), 163 schools in New York City
began the 2001-2002 school year with temporary principals. Unsurprisingly,
those school districts that are perceived as the most challenging,
in terms of having large percentages of impoverished or minority students
and being underfunded, are facing the greatest shortages (Wallace
Foundation 2003).
In response to
this growing problem, many school districts, particularly in large
cities, have developed more “grow your own” programs (Wallace
Foundation 2003 and Gates 2003). These initiatives, aimed at trying
to develop principal leadership, are generally intensive and require
enormous expenditures by local governments.
Despite these
types of directives, there continues to be a great disinclination
among many educators to become principals. According to a study by
MetLife, only a small percentage (9%) of teachers report interest
in becoming a principal, and this reluctance is consistent across
grade levels (Markow and Scheer 2003).
Many studies
(Educational Research Service 1998, Groff 1995, Copland 2003) have
pointed to the main factor preventing teachers from applying for administrative
positions: their perception that the job is unmanageable, draining,
and not worth the additional monetary compensation. Principals today
are expected to balance everything from issues of business management
to politics to instructional leadership to monitoring the cafeteria,
while facing escalating accountability demands to raise student achievement.
Add to this a climate of increased bureaucratic controls at the district,
state and national levels, and continually decreasing resources, and
it is not difficult to see why many perceive the job of principal
as impossible. A report by the Wallace Foundation (2003) sums it up
best: “Never has the resulting need to assure an adequate
supply of candidates for school leadership positions been clearer.
Yet never have these increasingly challenging and often thankless
jobs seemed less enticing, or more difficult to fill.”
As a result,
despite huge capital investments, school systems are facing the problem
of not having enough qualified leadership applicants, running the
risk of having to fill vacancies with lesser-qualified candidates
(Gates 2003). Too often, these jobs are filled by people with no educational
experience. Clearly, this has huge potential serious effects on school
quality.
The Trend
Toward Teacher Leadership and Shared Leadership Models
Increased demands on principals, along with a current trend toward
rethinking and restructuring models of school organization, have prompted
an expansion of leadership roles for others outside of the traditional
leadership of schools (Copland 2003). The term “teacher leader”
is defined quite differently depending on the context, but generally
is used to denote a teacher who works outside of the classroom, either
in addition to or in place of his or her regular duties, to assume
a leadership role. Lord and Miller (2000) organize the main responsibilities
of teacher leaders into four main categories: (1) working with individual
teachers to support classroom practice; (2) training groups of teachers
in professional development settings; (3) working with various school
constituents (teachers, administrators, parents, community members
or students) on programs or issues that affect or support learning;
and (4) working on the “task du jour.”
Sometimes, teacher
leadership happens in isolation, with individual teachers taking on
particular roles. Often, but not always, teacher leadership arises
within the context of a larger school-wide vision of collective leadership.
Copland (2003) and others highlight a trend toward distributive leadership
of schools, in which responsibility and accountability for a school’s
operation and performance extend beyond the traditional leadership.
The Effects
of Teacher Leadership
While there
seems to be a lack of hard data on the effects of teacher leadership
roles, some research exists noting positive influences of teacher
leadership on teachers’ feelings of professionalism and student
academic performance. Research by Ladson-Billings (1999) and Dilworth
and Imig (1995) among others demonstrates that when professional development
is designed and implemented by teachers, rather than directed from
above, teachers enjoy increased feelings of being valued and are more
willing to adopt new pedagogical techniques. This research also implies
potential positive effects of teacher-driven professional development
on school restructuring.
Research by Copland
(2003) suggests that within schools demonstrating significant improvements
in teaching and learning, leadership is not “principal-centric”,
but rather distributed among various school constituents. Work by
Lord and Miller (2000) indicates the positive effects of teacher leadership
on academic achievement, resulting from increased meaningful professional
development for teachers, and the fact that teachers have more control
over classroom issues, curriculum and resources. Yet they also note
that these effects are more notable when teacher leadership exists
within a school culture (and district culture) employing a shared
vision, collaboratively designed by teachers, administrators, parents
and others.
TOOLS
For my research, I utilized three main tools for data collection –
(1) formal surveys of teachers; (2) informal interviews and conversations
with teachers; and (3) a personal log of reflections and observations
pertaining to issues of leadership. For my surveys and interviews,
I specifically selected teachers who have worked or are currently
working in schools with self-described systems of shared leadership
and who have taken on various leadership roles in these schools. I
felt that these teachers were more familiar with alternative models
of administration and would be more able to comment on them, comparing
their theory and practice. For my personal log, I kept detailed notes
of teachers’ comments about leadership, whether made in staff
meetings, in one-on-one conversations, or in more formal educational
gatherings (professional development trainings, conferences).
In total, I surveyed
and interviewed 23 teachers. For the formal survey, questions focused
on the basics of teacher leadership: the roles that teachers have
taken on and the context in which this has happened. In terms of context,
I asked teachers what prompted them to take on these roles, whether
or not they were formally recognized by the school administration,
and whether or not they received training and compensation, in terms
of extra time or money, for these duties. As a follow-up to the formal
surveys, I expanded on this information, by interviewing teachers
about how they define shared leadership and what effects they feel
their teacher leadership has had on their classroom practice and feelings
of professionalism and commitment. I also questioned them about what
conditions they feel are necessary for (or what obstacles they feel
prevent) effective alternative models, and whether they feel their
leadership roles translate into increased teacher power.
DATA AND
ANALYSIS
Teacher Leadership Roles
The first question
I asked of teachers was “What leadership roles have you
taken on in your school?” The results are based on surveys
of 23 teachers. I then compiled teachers’ responses into eight
major categories. The categories, examples of teacher roles for each
category, and the percent of teachers surveyed involved in these roles
are detailed in the chart below:
TEACHER LEADERSHIP ROLES
AREA
OF LEADERSHIP |
EXAMPLES |
PERCENT
OF TEACHERS
IN THESE ROLES |
Curriculum/Instruction |
* Designing
curriculum or instructional materials for school
* Leading curricular teams
* Developing interdisciplinary projects or instructional plans
for school
* Coordinating testing review for students |
83% |
Assessment |
* Testing
coordination
* Developing and administering portfolio system
* Designing assessment measures/rubrics for school |
61% |
Professional
Development/
Training of Other Teachers |
* Designing
and running workshops for other teachers
* Peer coaching and review
* Mentoring new teachers
* Technology training
* Serving on inter-school networks |
35% |
School
Tone/Discipline |
* Designing
school-wide rules/policies
* Serving as a dean
* Serving on disciplinary committees |
78% |
Budgeting/Resource
Allocation |
* Serving
on budget planning committees
* Selecting instructional materials for purchase
* Designing school scheduling |
43% |
Grant
Writing |
* Raising
funds for individual classroom projects
* Raising funds for school-wide programs |
22% |
Project
Management |
* Student
activities advisor (student government, prom, etc.)
* Developing student guidance groups or workshops (girls’
group, safe sex workshop)
* Internship/community service program coordination
* College advising
* Records/organization |
70% |
Governance |
* Serving
on School Leadership Teams
* UFT chairmanship
* Serving on hiring committee
* Meeting facilitation |
39% |
Teachers most
often took on leadership roles in the areas of curriculum and instruction,
assessment, setting school tone and discipline, and individual project
management, a category I use to encompass a variety of roles revolving
around designing and implementing projects for students. These results
seem consistent with the research on teacher leadership roles cited
earlier, in that these roles most often center around the demands
of classroom practice and meeting the needs of students.
The Context
of Teacher Leadership
Next, I surveyed
teachers about their reasons for taking on leadership roles, whether
their roles were recognized or not, and whether or not they received
compensation for their increased duties. Again, the results are based
on surveys of 23 teachers. As most of the teachers I surveyed have
taken on numerous leadership roles, I asked them to answer these questions
based on how they would describe the majority of their leadership
experiences, so it is important to note that many teachers had a variety
of experiences that often fell into different contexts. The results
are outlined below:
What
most often prompted you to take on these teacher leadership roles?
39% I was specifically asked by the school administration to take
on a leadership responsibility.
48% A leadership responsibility was made available by the administration
and I volunteered for it.
13% I saw an unfulfilled need for this type of leadership responsibility
and took it on myself.
Were
your teacher leadership roles generally recognized by the school administration?
70% formally recognized by school administration
30% not formally recognized by school
administration
Did you more often receive training or no training for
your teacher leadership roles?
9% training
91% no training
Were
you more often compensated or not compensated with extra time (release
time) for your additional duties?
17% compensated with extra time
83% not compensated with extra time
Were
you more often compensated or not compensated with extra pay for your
additional duties?
13% compensated with extra pay
87% not compensated with extra pay
As you can see,
most often, these opportunities were made available and were formally
recognized by the school administration. Yet, it is important to keep
in mind that this study is limited to teachers working within shared
leadership environments, as results might be strikingly different
in other contexts.
Not surprisingly,
teachers rarely received training or compensation in terms of time
or money for taking on these responsibilities. In terms of training,
the only exception seemed to be when teachers participated in some
type of professional development outside of the school and then took
on the responsibility of sharing their training with other teachers
within their own school. In terms of money, the main exceptions seemed
to be when teachers took on roles as part of a formalized after-school
program.
In terms of time,
while teachers were often provided common meeting time within the
school day to plan collaboratively, they felt this was not sufficient.
In order to use this common meeting time effectively, teachers had
to devote significant time outside of the school day to planning agendas
and materials for these in-school meetings. Only three of the teachers
I surveyed ever received any kind of release time in exchange for
taking on additional duties, meaning teachers carried out all of these
responsibilities in addition to their full-time teaching loads.
As a final note,
of the teachers I surveyed, only four (17%) expressed interest in
becoming a school principal. While this result is slightly higher
than the research cited earlier, it still struck me as a low percentage,
especially given the wide range of tremendous responsibilities being
taken on by these teachers.
Teachers’
Notions of Shared Leadership
When asked to
define “teacher leadership” and “shared leadership”,
teachers responded in a variety of ways. Thus, in accordance with
the research, it is clear that there is no single definition for either
term. Ideas about “teacher leadership” and “shared
leadership” depend greatly on the context in which they exist.
Yet, I was able to delineate teachers’ notions of these two
terms into four main categories:
Distributed Duties
Several teachers
seem to define “teacher leadership” in terms of distributed
duties. This first became apparent in teachers’ responses to
the question “What leadership roles have you taken on in your
school?” Responses ranged anywhere from designing professional
development to organizing a school dance. For most teachers, “teacher
leadership” means teachers taking on almost any additional responsibility
outside of their classroom.
Furthermore, many teachers automatically equate “teacher leadership”
with “shared leadership.” When asked how they would define
“shared leadership”, several teachers defined it similarly
to “teacher leadership.” As one teacher wrote about shared
leadership, “Teachers in our school take on numerous responsibilities
outside of the classroom as delegated by the principal.”
Since the traditional
domain of teachers is the classroom, having teachers take on any other
responsibilities outside of it (particularly duties that might be
considered customary parts of an administrator’s job) seems
to be inherently considered “shared leadership.”
Distributed Power
Other teachers
seem to take the above framework a step further and define “teacher
leadership” within the context of a political model. Teachers
who seem to make this jump use phrases such as “teachers’
voice in decision-making”, “shared power”, “democratic
models of schooling” and “consensus” when describing
shared leadership. Gary Anderson characterizes this delineation as
the difference between “distributive” and “democratic”
leadership. As one teacher noted, “Our staff meets on a
regular basis to discuss issues that are important to the school –
curricular issues, school tone issues, and operations/management issues.” To these teachers, “shared leadership” requires teachers
to have a say in important school decisions and, ultimately, the power
to formulate school policy.
It is important
to note, however, that several teachers questioned whether their opinions
were incorporated in decision-making. While they acknowledged the
existence of various structures in their schools that allowed their
voices to be heard (meetings, open discussions with principals), they
questioned whether decision-making was truly democratic. As one teacher
wrote, “We meet all the time, but the principal still makes
all the final decisions. So is this shared leadership?”
Hence, there
appears to exist some type of middle ground between “distributed
duties” and “distributed power” – a framework
in which school issues are discussed collaboratively, and the principal
might look to teachers for their input in deciding how to solve a
specific problem, but final decisions still remain within the hands
of the formal leadership.
Change from the Ordinary
Some teachers
seem to associate “shared leadership” with diversion from
traditional standards. In describing what shared leadership in her
school looks like, one teacher responded, “We are a small
school, with lots of meeting time, so people’s voices are heard
more. I can also go to my principal freely when I have a problem or
suggestion.” Another teacher wrote, “Teachers
in our school get to design their own curriculum and assessment measures.”
While this notion
of “shared leadership” could serve as a basis for positive
change, it also seems to carry with it a detrimental assumption -
that because a school diverts from one traditional model, it can automatically
be described as encompassing alternative leadership. In this respect,
some school members seem to operate under the false notion that a
school, simply by fact of being alternative (i.e., being small or
using alternative assessment), employs a shared leadership model.
Thus, it is important to note that while restructuring (i.e., establishing
collaborative meeting time) might be a necessary condition for encouraging
shared leadership, alone it does not equal shared leadership.
Professional
Learning Communities
A few teachers
noted a connection between shared leadership models and their own
continued professional development and growth. As one teacher wrote
in describing shared leadership in his school, “There is
a clear plan for staff development in our school this year. Teachers
outline and reflect on their own professional goals for the year.
Part of our meeting time is devoted to developing strategies for working
with particular students.”
This description
of shared leadership seems most in line with the notions of “instructional
coaching” and of schools as “professional communities
of practice” (King 2004). Within this framework, school constituents
examine their own practice reflectively. School-wide professional
development focuses on developing leadership skills, intellectual
development, and providing support and training for teachers to reflect
and improve on their practice, with the overarching goal always being
improved student learning (Lyons and Pinnell 2001). This association
seems most amenable to incorporating teacher action research, reflection
and intellectual development into a vision of collective leadership
and might be described as an “inquiry-based approach”
(Copland 2003). As another teacher wrote, “Effective shared
leadership requires a leader who can encourage teachers to work on
their weakness areas, while also allowing them opportunities to use
and continue to develop their strengths.”
A Response to Weakness
Finally, while
most teachers see “teacher leadership” and “shared
leadership” emerging from a strong administration, some note
that it also materializes in situations with weak leadership, as the
need for teachers to step forward is even greater to ensure the effective
operation of a school. One teacher, reflecting on the leadership of
her school, noted, “Shared leadership came about in our
school from the teachers. Our principal was ineffective, so we took
on his responsibilities. Otherwise, the school would have fallen apart.” While “teacher leadership” has historically been viewed
as a means of “filling the gaps” (WestEd 2003), this situation
illustrates perhaps a most extreme example of it.
Effects
of Teacher Leadership on Teacher Practice and Professionalism
Teachers’
reactions to their own leadership roles and experiences with models
of shared decision making are unsurprisingly mixed. Almost unanimously,
teachers attribute increased feelings of professionalism and a perception
that their opinions are respected to taking on leadership roles within
their schools. Of the 23 teachers I surveyed, 87% felt that their
voices were heard more than they might be in a more traditional leadership
setting. As one teacher commented, “I feel taking on these
responsibilities is an important part of my job as a teacher, as a
professional, and is a way of having my input valued and validated.”
Teacher leaders
enjoy more freedom to make decisions about things directly affecting
themselves and their students. Of the teachers I surveyed, 78% identified
at least one way in which their role as a teacher leader benefited
their own classroom practice, most significantly, by allowing them
to design curriculum, assessment, professional development and school
policies that have a direct impact on their classroom. One teacher
wrote, “Shared leadership has allowed me more control over
my classroom and the opportunity to design my own curriculum.” Thus, teachers feel that their leadership roles have some possible
positive influence on their classroom practice in that they have more
freedom to design curriculum and assessment (though this seems to
be diminishing in light of increased standardized testing requirements)
and that they get to work more closely with other colleagues.
At the same time,
teachers almost across the board (87% of those surveyed) feel that
their leadership roles in some ways hinder their classroom practice
because they have less time to focus on planning, assessment, etc.
Along with these new roles for teachers come problems and challenges.
Teachers often feel resentful of these roles, as they are time-consuming
and educators are often not compensated in time or money for their
additional work. Moreover, taking on these roles provides a challenge
for teachers in terms of balancing these responsibilities with those
of teaching. One teacher commented, “While I wouldn’t
want to work in a different environment, I know that taking on all
these additional responsibilities sometimes hurts my teaching. It’s
like with all these other things to take care of, planning my curriculum
and grading become the last things I get around to doing.”
Many teachers
feel some resentment over the lack of time or monetary compensation
for taking on leadership roles. Some also feel additional resentment
toward their colleagues who don’t take on similar duties and
toward the fact that the same few teachers always seem to take on
a majority of the responsibilities. This was a situation mentioned
by several teachers, and is commonly referred to as “the curse
of the competent.” As one teacher described it, “The
more I do, the more I am asked to do.” Another wrote, “I
can’t help but be upset when I see other teachers not stepping
up to the plate and taking on a job when I, and others, are doing
so much.”
Several teachers
also express surprise in the fact that they so quickly became leaders
in their schools, often within the first year or two of becoming a
teacher. One teacher commented, “After my first year of
teaching, I was asked to be our curricular team leader. Like I was
ready?” Being so quickly considered an “expert”
by their colleagues or administration seems to create discomfort among
several teachers, especially given the fact that few teachers receive
any kind of professional training before assuming their leadership
roles.
In a variety
of ways, teachers seem to view their additional responsibilities as
a “double-edged sword.” On the one hand, teachers value
these roles because they in turn make themselves feel valued. They
also see the positive effects on their school, and ultimately their
students. On the other hand, they feel the negative effects in terms
of time taken away from their classroom and resentment of the unfair
burden these duties often carry. These feelings seem to exist simultaneously
within most of the teachers with whom I spoke. As feelings of professionalism
and voice increased, burnout seemed to increase as well.
While most teachers
consider their duties “above and beyond” their classroom
roles (70% of those surveyed), some teachers express the feeling that
these leadership roles are a natural part of their jobs. One teacher
noted, “While it would be nice to be paid for a lot of the
work that I do, that’s not why I do it. I know that what I am
doing is an essential part of my job and of having the school run
smoothly and is needed to service our kids. That’s why I do
it.” In these cases, the teachers seem to have bought into
a school vision of shared leadership from the beginning, so the additional
responsibilities are not unexpected.
At the same time,
some teachers question whether their roles translate into real increased
power within their schools. A few teachers point out that, while they
have taken on leadership roles and have a say in some decisions, they
continue to be excluded from several of the most important decisions
affecting the school. As one teacher commented, “Many of
the decisions we make as a staff seem superficial. Maybe that’s
too strong a word. They’re important decisions – like
about what books to order or what our homework policy should be –
but all the juicy decisions about personnel and budgeting and larger
school policies seem to still be made by the powers that be.”
Ultimately, despite
both the positive and negative effects of teacher leadership on their
practice and feelings of professionalism, teachers again and again
say the main reason they take on these roles is to benefit their students.
One teacher summed it up this way: “Bottom line –
I do all that I do for the students. Maybe I’m a sucker for
taking on all these extra jobs, but somebody has to. If not, our students
won’t get what they need and deserve.”
CONCLUSIONS
AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations
based on this research fall into two categories: (1) changes necessary
for increasing and cultivating teacher leadership and (2) strategies
for promoting effective shared leadership capacity in schools.
Cultivating
Teacher Leadership
Teacher leaders need additional compensation in terms of money and/or
release time in order to successfully fulfill their roles. Also, while
shared leadership, in particular, requires teachers to meet together,
collaborative time is needed, preferably within the school day.
Teacher leaders
also need more flexible options. Keeping in mind that many teachers
are reluctant to relinquish their practice full-time, as well as the
opportunity costs of removing qualified teachers from their classrooms,
we must seek out ways of encouraging teacher leadership without significant
compromises.
The Lead Teacher
CC9 Program piloted this year in the Bronx is just one example of
how redefining teacher roles can encourage teacher leadership while
also allowing superior teachers to remain in the classroom. Within
this program, lead teachers open their classrooms as “laboratories”
for other teachers to visit and learn from, while also leading professional
development activities for other teachers. These lead teachers are
in the classroom half-time, spending the other half of their time
providing leadership support for other teachers.
Teacher leaders
need training and continual support. As Lord and Miller (2000) point
out, administrators and policy makers often make the assumption that
expert teachers are automatically expert teacher leaders. This assumption
is often false. Preparing classroom teachers to become effective leaders
takes focused professional development and a clearly defined system
of accountability. Without these, teacher leaders run the risk of
suffering the same isolation in their new duties as many teachers
do within their traditional classroom roles.
Promoting
Shared Leadership
Shared leadership requires a strong shared vision, exemplified by
the formal school leadership, that teachers buy into from the beginning.
While individual decisions can be negotiated, this overall vision
cannot be constantly negotiated or compromised. Strong continual formal
leadership is needed to build this vision and keep it at the forefront
of what everyone is doing. This design also requires leadership to
identify and develop people’s strengths.
This idea connects
to what Sergiovanni (1992) describes as the difference between “power
over” and “power to”. While “power over”
exists in an environment of rules and control, “power to”
exists in one that shares a common goal, in which power is conceived
of as a means of achieving a shared purpose. Thus, in this framework,
shared vision is a necessary condition for shared leadership.
Teachers and
school administrations, however, must also understand the limits of
shared leadership. Not all decisions can be made collaboratively;
attempting to do so prevents the effective operation of a school.
The school constituents must decide from the beginning which decisions
will be left up to the teachers, which to the administration, and
which will be made collaboratively. Open discussions are needed to
build trust and prevent micromanagement.
School systems
should also be allowed to explore alternative options of official
leadership. One example of this might be having a school run by co-directors,
where each leader also held part-time instructional responsibilities.
Notions of leadership
must also be expanded to include constituents beyond traditional administration
and teachers. One weakness in most models of distributive leadership
seems to be that power stays in the hands of the “professionals”
– not the community members, parents and students. Thus we must
expand our ideas of “shared leadership” to encourage what
Sergiovanni (1994) refers to as a “community of leaders”,
viewing leadership as a “dynamic exercise of influence in pursuit
of shared goals” exercised communally, rather than as just one
position of power.
Finally, school
administrations must be open to true power sharing. There is a real
difference between “shared duties” and “shared power”.
In setting up democratic models of administration, it is useful to
think of how we set up our classrooms. If we do not want our classrooms
to be “teacher-centered”, but rather allowing and encouraging
the participation of all, why would we want our schools to be “principal-centered?”
Thus, leadership
must be reciprocal; in exchange for taking on increased responsibilities,
teachers must be allowed to have a true say in school policymaking,
and to set the priorities for shared governance. Otherwise the notion
of “shared leadership” becomes a false construct. Denying
teachers a real voice in school-wide decisions simply flattens the
idea of “shared leadership” to a delegation of responsibilities.
Finally, as the
work of Lord and Miller (2000) suggests, in viewing governance within
this different framework, we may come to no longer view teacher leadership
roles as “above and beyond”, or as simply a means for
increasing the number of people to share the administrative workload.
Rather, leadership could begin to be conceived as an essential and
valued part of a teacher’s role, and as a necessary part of
school restructuring.
WORKS CITED
Copland, M.A. 2003. “Distributed Leadership for Instructional
Improvement: The Principal’s Role.” The LSS Review,
2 (4): 22-23.
Dilworth, M.E.
and D.G. Imig. 1995. “Professional Teacher Development.” The ERIC Review, 3(3): 5-11.
Donaldson, G.
2001. Cultivating Leadership in Schools: Connecting People, Purpose
and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Educational Research
Service. 1998. Is There a Shortage of Qualified Candidates for
Openings in the Principalship? An Exploratory Study. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service.
Gates, S. et.
al. 2003. Who is Leading Our Schools? An Overview of School Administrators
and Their Careers. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education
Groff, F. 2005. Who Will Lead? The Principal Shortage. Washington DC: National
Conference of State Legislatures.
King, D. et. al.
2004. Instructional Coaching: Professional Development Strategies
That Improve Instruction. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute
for Education Reform.
Kouzes, J.M. and
B.Z. Posner. 1996. “Seven Lessons for Leading the Voyage to
the Future.” In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith and R. Beckhard
(eds.) The Leader of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Ladson-Billings,
G. 1999. “Preparing Teachers for Diversity: Historical Perspectives,
Current Trends, and Future Directions.” In L. Darling-Hammond
& G. Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook
of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lyons, C. and
G. Pinnell. 2001. Systems for Change in Literacy Education: A
Guide to Professional Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lord, B. and B.
Miller. 2000. Teacher Leadership: An Appealing and Inescapable
Force in School Reform? Newton, MA: Education Development Center,
Inc.
Markow, D. and
M. Scheer (project directors). 2003. The MetLife Survey of The
American Teacher: An Examination of School Leadership. New York:
Harris Interactive Inc.
National Association
of Elementary School Principals. 2003. NAESP Fact Sheet on the
Principal Shortage. Available online at naesp.org.
National Conference
of State Legislatures. 2002. Candidate Pool and Recruitment. An issue brief by the NCSL Task Force on School Leadership.
Sergiovanni, T.J.
1994. Building Community in Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T.J.
1992. Moral Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wallace Foundation.
2003. Beyond the Pipeline: Getting the Principals We Need, Where
They Are Needed Most. Available online at wallacefoundation.org.
Western Regional
Educational Laboratory (WestEd). 2003. “Leadership Development:
Enhancing the Role of Teachers.” in R & D Alert,
4 (3): 1-8. Available online at wested.org. |