Teacher to Leader: A Mixed Methods Approach to Investigating Teacher

Leadership in Program Improvement Secondary Schools

by
Ysidro C. Salazar, Jr.
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
San Diego State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education
July 1, 2010

iii

Copyright 2010
by
Ysidro C. Salazar, Jr.
All Rights Reserved

iv
DEDICATION
To Anita, my mother and supporter of all my educational endeavors,
For teaching me about responsibility and commitment;
To Carlota, my grandmother and spiritual guide throughout my life,
For teaching me about faith and hope;
To Maida, my mentor and motivator,
For teaching me about taking risks and making a difference;
I am eternally grateful to these powerful women
who inspired me to take this journey.

v
ABSTRACT
In an era of high accountability, teacher leadership is acknowledged as a key strategy
for achieving school improvement. The current literature embraces shared leadership and the
building of leadership capacity in schools, but does not sufficiently investigate learning
cultures within program improvement schools as supportive of teacher leadership. This study
considers teacher leadership as a possible means of building a shared culture of continuous
improvement within program improvement secondary schools. The researcher investigated
the culture of a program improvement year 5 school to understand the roles and functions of
teacher leaders and to identify specific norms, habits, and structures that supported or
inhibited the development of teacher leadership within this highly challenged environment.
Using an explanatory mixed methods design, the researcher administered the Teacher
Leadership School Survey (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001) within four program improvement
secondary schools. Survey results, in combination with student achievement trends over
three years, were utilized to identify the school that manifested the strongest presence of
teacher leadership and the most significant progress towards exiting program improvement
status. The researcher then utilized qualitative case study methodology to investigate this
school in greater depth.
Study findings support previous research that underscores the primary role principals
play in creating conditions for active, ongoing teacher leadership. The study provided
insights into the roles that teacher leaders assumed as they collaborated with the principal and
their peers to address student performance-related challenges. Findings revealed a supportive
school culture, largely situated within the context of professional learning communities. This
culture engendered specific norms of practice that allowed teachers to lead in ways that

vi
positively influenced student learning and teacher practice. The researcher advances a
Teacher Leadership Theoretical Framework to describe the ongoing dynamic of teacher
leadership development and influence within program improvement secondary schools.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................xv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER
1

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................5
Research Questions ..................................................................................................6
Overview of Methodology .......................................................................................6
Limitations of the Study...........................................................................................7
Significance of the Research ....................................................................................8

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........................................................................10

Defining Teacher Leadership .................................................................................10
Three Evolutionary Waves of Thought............................................................11
First wave. ..................................................................................................11
Second wave. .............................................................................................11
Third wave. ................................................................................................12
Conceptions of Teacher Leadership.................................................................12
Four Perspectives of Teacher Leadership ........................................................13
Instructional and participative leadership. .................................................14
Role-based leadership. ...............................................................................14

viii
Distributed leadership. ...............................................................................14
Parallel leadership. .....................................................................................14
Identifying the Roles and Functions of Teacher Leaders ......................................15
Developing Professional Cultures to Foster Teacher Leadership ..........................18
Identifying Traditional Norms of Teacher Practice .........................................19
Reinventing Teacher Norms ............................................................................20
Purposeful conversations. ..........................................................................21
Effective collaboration. ..............................................................................21
Willingness to participate. .........................................................................25
Forging new working relationships. ..........................................................31
Establishing professional communities of practice....................................35
Rethinking Organizational Structures ....................................................................39
Conclusion .............................................................................................................45
3

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................48
Introduction ............................................................................................................48
Research Design.....................................................................................................50
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................54
Quantitative Study .................................................................................................55
Instrumentation ................................................................................................55
Validity and reliability. ..............................................................................57
Data Collection Procedures..............................................................................57
Data Analysis Methods ....................................................................................58
Qualitative Study ...................................................................................................59
Instrumentation ................................................................................................59

ix
Data Collection Procedures..............................................................................60
Data Analysis Methods ....................................................................................61
Summary ................................................................................................................64
4

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS .................................................................65

Sample School Profiles ..........................................................................................68
Hearst Middle School ......................................................................................69
Hearst High School ..........................................................................................70
Ocean View Middle School .............................................................................73
Ocean View High School.................................................................................76
Quantitative Research Findings .............................................................................78
Phase I: Survey Results....................................................................................78
Survey Participant Demographics..........................................................................78
Education Level ...............................................................................................78
Credentials .......................................................................................................79
Teaching Experience ........................................................................................79
Participant Years at Current School .................................................................82
Participant Roles ..............................................................................................82
Participant Roles ..............................................................................................87
Leadership ..............................................................................................................88
Leadership Dimensions across Schools ...........................................................88
Overall Leadership among Schools .................................................................89
Leadership Dimensions among Schools ..........................................................91
Summary of Quantitative Research Findings ..................................................94
Qualitative Research Findings ...............................................................................95

x
Phase II: Principal Interview ............................................................................96
Supports to Teacher Leadership within Ocean View High School ...............102
Collaboration............................................................................................102
Administrative support.............................................................................103
Dedicated meeting times. .........................................................................104
Obstacles to Teachers Leadership within Ocean View High School ............105
Lack of trust. ............................................................................................105
Deficit belief system. ...............................................................................106
Phase III: Teacher Leader Interviews ............................................................107
Professional Learning Community Leaders...................................................108
Mentors ..........................................................................................................109
Supporters of Student Learning .....................................................................110
Supports to Teachers Leadership within Ocean View High School ..............114
Dedicated time to meet in PLCs every two weeks with a schoolwide focus. ...............................................................................................114
Ongoing learning for teacher leaders, usually self-motivated. ................115
District and site strategic plans that include teachers in decisionmaking......................................................................................................115
A supportive school culture that embraces new ideas and change. .........116
Shared leadership practices. .....................................................................118
Teacher empowerment. ............................................................................119
A common belief that all students can learn. .......................................120
Obstacles to Teacher Leadership within Ocean View High School ..............120
District mandates and initiatives not aligned to site needs. .....................121
Teacher union contract. ............................................................................121

xi
Lack of leadership training for teachers...................................................123
Lack of focus by the site administration ..................................................123
Phase IV: Professional Learning Community (PLC) Observations ..............124
Organization ...................................................................................................124
Participation and Collaboration .....................................................................125
Autonomous Agenda Setting .........................................................................126
Group Dynamics ............................................................................................128
Summary ..............................................................................................................130
5

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................133
Summary of the Study .........................................................................................135
Discussion of Major Findings and Results ..........................................................137
School Culture .....................................................................................................137
Norms of Practice ................................................................................................140
Purposeful Conversations ..............................................................................141
Effective Collaboration ..................................................................................141
Willingness to Participate ..............................................................................142
New Working Relationships ..........................................................................143
Characteristics of Teacher Leaders ......................................................................145
Communities of Practice ......................................................................................146
Barriers to Teacher Leadership ............................................................................150
Teachers Union Contract ..............................................................................150
Lack of Administrative Direction ..................................................................151
District Mandates ...........................................................................................151
Lack of Leadership Training ..........................................................................152

xii
Unexpected Findings and Disconfirming Evidence ............................................154
Lack of Trust ..................................................................................................154
Deficit Thinking .............................................................................................155
Low Morale ....................................................................................................156
Leadership Change.........................................................................................156
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................157
Suggestions for Future Research .........................................................................159
Recommendations for Future Practice .................................................................159
Creating Time for Collaboration ....................................................................160
Institutionalizing Professional Learning Communities .................................160
Changing Bureaucratic Structures .................................................................161
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................161
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................164
APPENDIX
A SURVEY APPROVAL .............................................................................................175
B TLS SURVEY ...........................................................................................................177
C DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET-TEACHERS ......................................181
D SURVEY SCRIPT FOR PI SCHOOLS ....................................................................183
E CONSENT FORM PRINCIPAL ...............................................................................185
F CONSENT FORM TEACHER LEADER.................................................................188
G TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ....................................................................191
H PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL..................................................................195
I

OBSERVATION PROTOCOL GUIDE ....................................................................199

OBSERVATIONAL PROTOCOL REPORTING FORM ........................................200

xiii
K TRIANGULATION OF MULTIPLE DATA COLLECTION..................................201
L CODES: ROLES AND FUNCTIONS ......................................................................211
M CODES: LEADERSHIP ROLES ..............................................................................214
N CODES: SUPPORTS AND HINDRANCES ............................................................217
O CODES: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES (PLC)
OBSERVATIONS .....................................................................................................226
P PLC AGENDA-WORLD LANGUAGES .................................................................230
Q LEARNING TARGETS ............................................................................................231
R MATH DEPARTMENT AGENDA ..........................................................................232

xiv
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 Hearst Middle School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary .......................................71
Table 2 Hearst High School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary ...........................................74
Table 3 Ocean View Middle School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary ..............................75
Table 4 Ocean View High School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary .................................77
Table 5 Education Level of Participants ..................................................................................79
Table 6 Participant Credentials ................................................................................................80
Table 7 Participant Years Teaching .........................................................................................81
Table 8 Participant Years at Current School............................................................................83
Table 9 Participant Roles .........................................................................................................84
Table 10 Participant Roles and Role Combinations ................................................................85
Table 11 Descriptives: Leadership Dimensions across Schools ..............................................88
Table 12 Descriptives: Overall Leadership among Schools ....................................................90
Table 13 Descriptives: Leadership Dimensions Among Schools ............................................93

xv
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Teacher Leadership. ......................................................50
Figure 2. Leadership across schools. Bar heights indicate mean values. Error bars
indicate standard error of the mean (SEM). .................................................................89
Figure 3. Overall Leadership among Schools. Bar heights indicate mean values. ..................91
Figure 4. Leadership dimensions among schools. ...................................................................92
Figure 5. Leadership dimensions: Ocean View High. Bar heights indicate mean
values. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean (SEM). ...................................94
Figure 6. Theoretical Framework of Teacher Leadership. ....................................................134

xvi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Throughout the dissertation journey, I was fortunate to have special friends, family,
and colleagues assist me in this learning process. Their unwavering support encouraged me
to continue as I transitioned into a different stage in my professional career while pursuing
the monumental task of completing a doctoral program.
I entered the program with some trepidation but I was fortunate to have a special
friend, Karen, by my side. Thank you Karen for your support, words of wisdom, and
incredible ability to always say the right thing at the right time. We studied, we questioned,
we laughed throughout our courses, but most importantly we prevailed.
Cohort One holds a special place in my memory and my heart. I want to praise Gina
for her tenacity and ability to work while some of us are trying to have fun in class. Your
perspective and brilliance brought fresh ideas to a class full of educators. I am sure our
passionate conversations about the educational system will continue for a long time.
I want to thank Debbie for making all our classes enjoyable. You are a special person
who always provided great insights and the best jokes. From you, I learned to relax even
during our more demanding times in the program. Thank you for your support and all the
laughs.
Through the powerful teaching of professors in this doctoral program, I can truly say
that I am a scholar practitioner. Thank you to all the professors who taught us about
leadership, change, and making a difference. I particularly want to thank my dissertation
committee.
I have the most profound respect and appreciation for Dr. Cynthia Uline who
provided great support, guidance, and encouragement throughout this dissertation journey. I

xvii
was very fortunate to have you as my dissertation chair even when you took the editing
scissors to my writing. I admire your work and the high expectations you have for all your
students.
My committee members, Dr. Joe Johnson and Dr. Sheri Barker, were constant guides
throughout the program, both as mentors and consultants. Thank you for informing my study
and helping me through the dissertation process.
I want to convey a special appreciation to my family, both close and afar, who
endured this process with me. Thank you for excusing me from family functions as I labored
over the completion of this study.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge all the teacher leaders in our challenging schools who
are taking risks and making a difference for all students. You are the new hope for school
improvement.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Within every school there is a sleeping giant of teacher leadership, which can be a strong
catalyst for making change. By using the energy of teacher leaders as agents of school
change, the reform of public education will stand a better chance of building momentum
(Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001, p. 2).
School leaders grapple with the problem of achieving large-scale reform. The current
educational context pressures both school leaders and teachers to improve their practice and
raise student achievement levels continuously. The challenge is not only to improve, but also
to sustain improvement. Additionally, constant changes in leadership create the opportunity,
indeed the necessity, for teachers in program improvement schools to adapt, lead, and sustain
the momentum of various interventions and initiatives.
Recent research demonstrated that, even in the most difficult circumstances, schools
sustain improvement by equipping teachers to lead innovation and curriculum development
(Harris, 2002). Current literature also highlighted the importance of building the leadership
capacity of teachers throughout the school culture (Bronson, 2007; Copland, 2003; Crowther,
Kaagen, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Fullan, 2001). Sustaining improvement requires the
leadership of many across the organization. Improvements in learning are more likely to be
achieved when leadership is distributed to teachers, who directly impact instruction and
student learning. The concept of teachers as leaders, better known as teacher leadership,
acknowledges that teachers rightly and importantly hold a central position in the ways
schools operate and in the core functions of teaching and learning (York-Barr & Duke,
2004).

2
The current emphasis on teacher leadership as a means of achieving successful school
reform challenges longstanding roles and norms of practice embedded within established
bureaucratic systems of schooling. Traditionally, teaching roles have been defined by a
factory model that views the teacher as a semi-skilled worker with virtually no autonomy
(Dufour & Eaker, 1998). Therefore, in school cultures where traditional norms of practice
prevail, there are identifiable barriers that impede teacher leadership.
Research has shown that cultures characterized by effective collaboration, purposeful
conversations, openness to leadership by teachers, recognition for teacher leaders, and
commitment to shared values increase a teachers willingness to assume leadership roles
(Barth, 2001; Crowther et al., 2002; Donaldson, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Katzenmeyer
& Moller, 2001; Lambert, 1998, 2003). School cultures that lack some or all of these
qualities are considered partially supportive or unsupportive of teacher leaders. From their
review of the related literature, York-Barr and Duke (2004) concluded that, professional
norms of isolation, individualism, and egalitarianism challenge the emergence of teacher
leadership (p. 288). The literature described how these cultural characteristics including the
norm of autonomy and isolated teacher practice, an egalitarian view of teaching, teachers
lack of confidence, and the impulse to maintain the status quo serve as impediments to the
development of teacher leadership (Donaldson, 2001; Elmore, 2000; Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2001; Lambert, 2003).
Increasingly, school and district leaders look to teacher leadership as a vehicle for
improving schools. If teachers are primary actors in addressing school reform, clearly
administrators must establish cultures where their leadership will flourish. The idea of
utilizing teacher leaders in program improvement schools, where they are highly needed, is

3
worthy of study. This dissertation examined the concept of teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools and investigated teachers perceptions of how and to what
degree their school cultures support teacher leadership to continuously improve their practice
and positively impact student achievement.
Background
The need for teacher leadership has been fueled by educational policies that pressure
school administrators to seek effective ways to increase student achievement. The highstakes testing environment associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has
intensified this pressure. The notion of teacher leadership as the pathway to reform gained
increased acceptance as scholars and administrators recognized that teachers possess the
primary knowledge and expertise for improving instruction and student outcomes (Datnow &
Costellano, 2002; Elmore & Burney, 1997; Harris, 2005).
A school culture that promotes a professional approach to teaching cultivates
leadership opportunities for all teachers. Administrators who foster professional school
cultures open doors for everyone to assume leadership roles rather than only supporting
leaders within formal positions of authority (King, 2002). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
delineated seven characteristics of school culture that support teacher leadership:
1. They have a developmental focus where teacher leaders are coached;
2. Teachers receive recognition for their contributions as leaders;
3. Teachers are encouraged to take risks and be autonomous about assuming
responsibility for initiatives;
4. Collegiality is a norm of practice;
5. Teachers participate in decision making about important matters;

4
6. There is effective communication between and among teachers; and
7. There is a positive work environment where teachers feel supported.
The emergence of teacher leadership has been traced in three evolutionary waves
(Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). Within the first wave, teachers primarily served in formal
roles such as department heads to further the efficiency of school operations. This role was
perceived as an extension of the administration that does not change teacher practice,
therefore maintaining the status quo (Wasley, 1991). According to Silva and her colleagues,
the second wave focused on the instructional expertise of teacher leaders including staff
developers and mentors to new teachers. The third wave of teacher leadership acknowledged
that teachers are primary actors as collaborators for continuous improvement.
The literature strongly supported school culture as a dominant influence on the
success of school improvement initiatives (Fullan, 2001; Peterson & Deal, 1998). The
literature also delineated specific cultural norms and organized structures that promote
teacher leadership (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). A school-wide focus on learning, inquiry, and
reflective practice encouraged teachers to take the initiative to lead (Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2001). Teachers initiative engendered a teamwork ethic characterized by shared decisionmaking (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Pellicer & Anderson, 1995). These norms were more
conducive to teachers sharing in valued leadership functions.
Traditional practices of school governance and teaching do not easily support shared
leadership and collaboration among teachers (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). However,
researchers who studied the bureaucratic structure of schools tested an enabling
organizational structure anchored in trust that was proposed as a vehicle for promoting
collaborative cultures within which teachers are leaders (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Elmore

5
(2004) challenged hierarchical structures in favor of communities of practice, which engage
all stakeholders to be active members. Printy (2008) also studied communities of practices
as a means of changing the established bureaucratic systems of conducting business in
schools. She highlighted opportunities for mutual learning between and among teachers and
administrators through mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire.
The traditional bureaucratic structure of schools constituted a significant factor in the
development of teacher leaders. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) investigated school
structures as dimensions that can and should be modified to support teacher leadership. They
also identified time and resources, decision-making approaches, communication methods,
and incentive systems as organizational issues, which must be addressed in order to empower
teachers to lead within and beyond their classrooms.
Purpose of the Study
By their very nature, schools are complex and changing organizations. Informationage technology, diverse student populations, and increasing external mandates only add to
the complexities. Traditional leadership approaches no longer meet the current demands of
school reform. These pressures push the concept of teacher leadership to the forefront of the
educational landscape. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) described teacher leadership as a
multi-faceted phenomenon that has positive future results with school reform efforts.
Principals collaborate with teacher leaders as they create school cultures that break away
from existent norms of practice and support teacher leadership.
The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher leadership in low achieving
secondary schools as a possible means of building a shared culture of continuous
improvement. The study investigated how principals and teachers in program improvement

6
schools understand the roles and functions of teacher leaders. An in-depth case study of the
leadership capacity within a program improvement secondary school helped to identify
specific norms, habits, and structures that may support or inhibit the development of teacher
leaders. The study also examined the ways in which effective principals incorporate or
challenge these norms, habits and structures to provide opportunities and supports for active,
ongoing teacher leadership.
Research Questions
Three primary questions drove this study. These questions are:
1. How do administrators and teachers in persistently under-performing secondary
schools, labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher
leaders?
2. To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement secondary schools?
3. What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
secondary schools?
Overview of Methodology
This study sought to further develop the research on teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools by using a mixed methods approach to exploring the
research questions. A four-phase sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2009) was
employed, beginning with a quantitative phase measuring teachers perceptions of how their
schools model effective practices in supporting teacher leadership. Teachers in four program
improvement secondary schools were surveyed. The secondary school with the highest

7
degree of perceived teacher leadership along with evidence of significant student progress
was examined in the second, third, and fourth phases using case study methods.
In the quantitative phase, the researcher implemented the Teacher Leadership School
Survey (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001) in four program improvement schools within a large
secondary district in southern California. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) established
content validity and reliability of the instrument through a panel of experts with a high level
of knowledge about teacher leadership. The outcome was a 49-item instrument based on
seven scales or dimensions that are described in the review of literature.
The qualitative phases included the use of semi-structured interviews, observations,
and archival data to further explore the experiences, attitudes, and perceptions of teacher
leaders. The data were reviewed and coded by the researcher. Once the coding process was
complete, themes were identified and reported in narrative form. Using case study
methodology in the qualitative phases of the study provided rich descriptions of teacher
leadership within the context of a program improvement secondary school.
Limitations of the Study
While the mixed methods approach has strengths and is an appropriate design for this
study, it also had several limitations. Observer bias may have intervened as the researcher
conducted the study. Observer bias occurs when the researchers own beliefs regarding
teacher leadership impact his filtering of data differently than another researchers
interpretations (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Thus, the researcher used multiple data sources and
data collection methods to reduce the risk of biases associated with a singular specific
method (Maxwell, 1996).

8
Another limitation was the small number of high schools specific to an area in
California. The research was conducted within one school district and can be influenced by
the current structures and professional development programs. These factors restricted the
ability to generalize the results to other educational levels and geographic locations. It was
important to complete the surveys during faculty meetings to maximize response rates.
To address the limitations of sample size, self-report, and single setting, the
researcher used qualitative methods to provide data triangulation. With data triangulation,
the potential problems with construct validity also can be addressed because the multiple
sources of evidence essentially provide multiple measures of the same phenomena (Yin,
2009, p. 116). Triangulation of multiple data sources countered these limitations and could
facilitate the replication of the study by other researchers.
Significance of the Research
In light of the growing number of educational reform initiatives that emphasize
greater teacher capacity and shared decision-making, teacher leadership has emerged as an
important component of many school improvement efforts (Durrant & Holden, 2006). The
link between schools where teachers assume responsibility for reform and the success of
school reform is well documented in the literature (Birky, 2002; Copland, 2003; Datnow &
Costellano, 2002; DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Schools, however, continue to struggle with the
top-down mandates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Under the NCLB
Act, Title I schools that fail at producing two consecutive years of Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) will be forced into drastic reform measures. Teachers are important actors in
detangling the tensions of reform and improving the student achievement of low performing
schools. Therefore, studying teacher leadership in program improvement secondary schools

9
was particularly significant for a couple of reasons. First, the broader educational reform
literature largely ignored the notion of teacher leadership within these low-performing
schools. Secondly, since most current secondary school reform efforts urge school-wide
change through professional learning communities, it was important to understand how
school cultures supported these communities of learning through teacher leadership. In this
way, the study reinforced and extended the support for teacher leaders in program
improvement secondary schools, where many are needed to address student achievement
challenges.

10
CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Teacher leadership suggests that teachers rightly and importantly hold a central
position in the ways schools operate and in the core functions of teaching and learning
(York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Teacher leaders provoke change and innovation by assisting
with the management of schools, evaluating educational programs, and facilitating
professional learning communities. Their leadership poses questions about teacher and
principal leaders, their actions, and their relationships. This literature review investigates
how principals and teachers perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders. It further
investigates the ways teachers assume leadership roles by exploring conditions that support
or inhibit teacher leadership. Teachers are the schools most valuable resource. Teachers,
from neophytes to experts, fulfill formal and informal leadership roles within all schools. It
is incumbent upon school leaders to tap this valuable resource as they initiate school reform
efforts and create sustainable practices that promote student achievement.
Defining Teacher Leadership
According to York-Barr and Duke (2004), many researchers readily assert the
importance of teacher leadership but typically fail to define it. Rather than advancing an
explicit definition of the construct, researchers more often describe what it looks like at
various times within various contexts. In fact, review of the research and scholarship reveals
definitions of teacher leadership emerging as it is practiced.
Teacher leadership is conceptualized as a set of behaviors and practices that are
undertaken collectively. It is centrally concerned with the relationships and connections
among the individuals within a school (Muijs & Harris, 2007). This study defines teacher

11
leadership as the ability to collaborate effectively with colleagues for the purposes of
influencing change, increasing teacher expertise, and improving student and teacher learning.
This definition provides opportunities for all teachers to be leaders within their schools.
Three Evolutionary Waves of Thought
Silva et al. (2000) describe the evolution of teacher leadership in three waves: (a)
teacher leaders as managers charged with improving the efficiency of school operations, (b)
teacher leaders as instructional experts who serve as curriculum leaders, staff developers, or
mentors, and (c) teacher leaders as key agents in re-culturing schools. Each wave presents its
own unique way of thinking about teacher leadership. However, third wave thought frames
the nature of this study.
First wave. In the first wave, teacher leaders assume formal roles such as department
chairpersons or union representatives. They function as managers who work to further the
efficiency of school operations. As described by Wasley (1991), teacher leaders function in
this capacity as extensions of the administration, promoting the effectiveness of the existing
system. In this role, teacher leaders are seen as first-order change agents and mere supporters
of the status quo (Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978).
Second wave. Recognizing the limitations of first-wave roles, a second wave of
teacher leadership capitalized more on the instructional expertise of teachers. Principals or
district leaders appointed teachers as curriculum leaders, staff developers, and mentors for
new teachers. Although these positions aligned teacher leaders more closely with their peers
and more distant from administrators, teachers still did not view them as contributors to their
daily pedagogical work. Interestingly, an outcome of second wave leadership positions was
the remote controlling of teachers through the creation of prepackaged materials (Darling-

12
Hammond, 1998, p. 7). According to Darling-Hammond (1998), an alternative to remote
controlling of teachers empowers teachers with greater understanding of complex situations
rather than seeking to control them with simplistic formulas or cookie-cutter routines (p. 9).
Third wave. Acknowledging that teacher-created curriculum was not perceived as
prepackaged further emphasized the importance of empowering teachers who work in the
classroom. This acknowledgement led to the third wave of teacher leadership, identifying
teachers as key actors who create second-order change in schools, that is, changes resulting
in breaking with the past and requiring new knowledge and skills (Argyris & Schon, 1974,
1978). Indeed, as teachers assume both individual and collective responsibility for
improving instruction within their own classrooms and across the entire school, they reinvent
the schools culture. Through ongoing collaboration, they continue to learn about their own
practice at the same time they are teaching one another. Thus, teachers become the creators
and re-creators of the school culture, both within and outside their classrooms (Silva et al.,
2000).
Conceptions of Teacher Leadership
Various conceptions of teacher leadership, developed within and across these three
evolutionary waves of thought, support third-wave thinking. Childs-Bowen, Moller, and
Scrivner (2000) aligned their conception to Silva et al. (2000). They believed that teachers
are leaders when they function in professional learning communities to affect student
learning; contribute to school improvement; inspire excellence in practice; and empower
stakeholders to participate in educational improvement (p. 28).
Pellicer and Anderson (1995) took a slightly different approach conceptualizing
teacher leadership in terms of instructional leadership, specifically. As change agents,

13
teacher leaders work with various stakeholders to improve the instructional program, which
results in sustained student learning. Pellicer and Anderson (1995) further suggested that
instructional leadership does not necessarily begin and end with the principal. Rather,
instructional leadership must come from teachers if schools are to improve and teaching is to
achieve professional status (p. 16).
Fullan (1994) conceptualized teacher leadership as a combination of inter-related
domains of commitment and knowledge (p. 246). This conception aligns with third wave
thought where teacher leaders engage in second-order changes and seek to make a difference
in students lives. Teacher leaders work collegially and with moral purpose to close the gap
between high-performing and lower performing students.
The aforementioned conceptions of teacher leadership focus on pedagogical expertise
that allows teachers to improve the school culture and instructional program. Teachers lead
among their peers focusing on instructional practices and aligning materials to improve
teaching and learning. In these views, student learning is enhanced because of their
commitment.
Four Perspectives of Teacher Leadership
Teacher leadership is also situated within four perspectives of leadership that are
inclusive of formal and informal leaders: participative leadership, leadership as an
organizational quality, distributed leadership, and parallel leadership (York-Barr & Duke,
2004, p. 5). York-Barr and Duke (2004) suggested that teacher leadership surfaces more
readily when these forms of leadership are practiced. The leadership perspective of teachers
and how they lead within their school cultures are predicated by the principals leadership
style and expectations.

14
Instructional and participative leadership. Teacher leadership aligns closely with
the attributes of instructional and participative leadership (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
However, instructional leadership can be defined differently depending on the context.
Instructional leadership constitutes the behavior of educational professionals who participate
in tasks and activities that affect the development, growth, and performance of students
(Leithwood & Duke, 1999). Participative leadership focuses on actions, needs, and opinions
of the entire group that is underpinned by democratic ideals (Yukl, 1994).
Role-based leadership. Adopting a perspective from institutional theory, Ogawa and
Bossert (1995) conceptualized leadership as an organizational quality, as opposed to an
individual quality. Leadership flows through the networks of roles that comprise the
organization. Moreover, leadership is based on the deployment of resources that are
distributed throughout the network of roles, with different roles having access to different
levels and types of resources (p. 238).
Distributed leadership. A distributed leadership perspective recognizes the practice
of multiple leaders and focuses on the interactions, rather than the actions, of those in formal
or informal leadership roles (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). This leadership model
is aligned to Ogawa and Bosserts conception. Distributed leadership promotes
representational power that highlights teams rather than individuals. With increased
pressures of external mandates, principals may find this model to be a viable, alternative
approach to leadership.
Parallel leadership. Parallel leadership, as introduced by Crowther et al. (2002), is a
way of describing teacher leaders working in parallel with administrators to collectively
enhance student achievement. Parallel leadership challenges teachers and administrators to

15
establish a collaborative working relationship that embodies mutual respect, shared purpose,
and allowance for individual expression (p. 38). Nurturing parallel leadership involves a
change in the traditional roles of teachers and principals. Crowther and his colleagues
suggest that principals assume primary responsibilities for strategic leadership, which include
visioning, aligning resources, and networking. They further suggest that teachers assume
primary responsibility for pedagogical leadership focused on the implementation of best
teaching practices.
Across the research and scholarship, the concept of teacher leadership is legitimately
rooted in larger leadership theories, at the same time it is necessarily grounded in
pedagogical knowledge. Teacher leadership is not about power, not simply another
leadership practice, and not just for a few teachers. It is a way of thinking about leadership
that requires collaboration within a facilitative, supportive school culture. Through their
roles and functions, teacher leaders work to make a difference in their students futures.
Identifying the Roles and Functions of Teacher Leaders
Increased demands on principals, along with a current trend toward rethinking and
restructuring models of school organization, have prompted an expansion of authority and
influence to others outside traditional school leadership positions (Copland, 2003). Teacher
leadership roles may be formal or informal, and they vary from one school to another. Each
school context establishes teachers opportunities for leadership roles. Liberman (1992)
claims teacher leadership roles are proliferating in greater variety than many thought
possible (p. 161).
Data collected from an online survey of 300 of the most accomplished teachers in the
United States recognized teachers engaged in many leadership roles (Dozier, 2007). Sixty

16
percent (179 teachers) completed the survey of which 102 were National Board Certified
teachers and 92 were Teachers of the Year. Ninety-eight percent of respondents had received
other awards for excellence in the classroom. Survey results indicated 97% conducted
professional development sessions for colleagues; 83% engaged in curriculum development;
84% served as department chairs, team leaders, or grade-level chairs; and 84% mentored new
teachers. These data suggest that schools are already using accomplished teachers as leaders
in a variety of ways.
According to Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), teacher leadership roles may be
(a) focused on the classroom, the school, the school district, the state, or the national level,
(b) closely related to a specific discipline or defined as generalist, (c) an individual
contributor or may be a team member, (d) highly formalized or simply a one-time
contribution, and (e) chosen by election of peers, by administrative appointment, or by selfselection (p. 11). Three leadership functions emerge from these leadership roles. First,
teacher leaders may influence their peers as they perform their responsibilities. Next, the
teacher leaders function may be to contribute to the daily operations within or outside the
school. Finally, teachers may serve in governance positions or in decision-making roles
within or outside the school. Teacher leaders may accept multiple tasks, which cross over
the lines of these functions.
The literature also emphasizes that teacher leadership roles center around three
primary actions (Bronson, 2007). The primary actions include influencing others, facilitating
communities of learning, and confronting barriers. Each action provides opportunities for
teachers to function as learners and leaders who influence others toward improved practice
and learning for all students (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). These roles and subsequent

17
actions align with the third wave of teacher leadership described by Silva et al. (2000). This
third wave of teacher leadership required a school culture with structures that support
collaboration and continuous learning among teachers.
An example of such third-wave leadership emerged from a quantitative study of
Hartnell-Young (2006) who explored four roles teacher leaders assumed as they worked to
infuse technology into classroom instruction. The four roles included designing the learning
environment, managing people and resources, mediating learning, and improving practice.
Based on Wengers (1998) communities of practice perspective, an in-depth, three-year study
was conducted in 12 schools. The study demonstrated how teachers appropriated technology
differently to create classroom communities that build knowledge. Some teachers also acted
as negotiators across classroom and school boundaries. By engaging in professional learning
through specific curriculum projects, teacher leaders formed new communities of practice
and technology-enriched instructional practices. Here teacher leaders employed specific
pedagogical knowledge as they led curriculum reform efforts in a participatory manner.
In their roles, teacher leaders share the responsibility of learning and leadership with
the administrators (Crowther et al., 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). Teachers, the
schools most valuable resource, can be empowered to lead and support school change that
builds organizational capacity. In this context, leadership is a collective process where
teachers function as pedagogical leaders in conjunction with the principal. According to
Peterson and Deal (1998), culture is the underground stream of values, beliefs, traditions,
and rituals that has built up over time as people work together, solve problems, and confront
challenges (p. 28).

18
Developing Professional Cultures to Foster Teacher Leadership
In their extensive research with over 5,000 teachers, Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
identified seven dimensions or supports characteristic of school cultures that foster teacher
leadership. The following is a description of these dimensions:
Developmental Focus: Teachers are supported in learning new knowledge and skills
and encouraged to help others learn. They are provided with needed assistance,
guidance and coaching.
Recognition: Teachers are respected and recognized for the professional roles they
take and the contributions they make. A spirit of mutual respect and caring exists
among teachers. There are processes to recognize effective work.
Autonomy: Teachers are encouraged to take initiative in making improvements and
innovations. Barriers are removed and resources are found to support teachers
efforts.
Collegiality: Teachers collaborate on instructional and student-related matters.
Examples of collegial behavior include teachers discussing strategies, sharing
materials, or observing in one anothers classrooms.
Participation: Teachers are actively involved in making decisions and have input on
important matters. Department or team leaders are selected with the participation of
teachers.
Open Communication: Teachers send and receive communication in open, honest
ways in the school. Teachers feel informed about what is going on in the school.
Teachers easily share opinions and feelings. Teachers are not blamed when things go
wrong.

19
Positive Environment: Teachers experience general satisfaction with the work
environment. Teachers feel respected by one another and by parents, students, and
administrators. Teachers perceive the school as having effective administrative
leaders (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001, pp. 77-78).
Based on their research of these seven dimensions, Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
developed a survey instrument, the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS). The
researchers incorporated the seven dimensions in the survey with each having seven items
describing areas that support teacher leadership.
How do school leaders, in their day-to-day practice, develop teacher leadership
capacities? Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) stated, Although progress has been made in
recognizing that the principals job is about creating a culture in which principals and
teachers lead together, our experience is that this perspective is not widespread (p. 84).
While we appear to recognize the importance of teacher leadership, teacher leaders cannot be
effective in their roles without the support and encouragement of their administrators and
each other. Salient themes emerge from the research as to how school cultures support or
inhibit teacher leadership.
Identifying Traditional Norms of Teacher Practice
Long-standing practices of school governance and teaching norms work against
efforts to encourage teacher leadership and collaboration among teachers. A tradition of topdown approaches undermines teacher leadership. As schools replace hierarchical structures,
they invent new structures to support the development of teacher leadership (DarlingHammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995). These shared leadership structures promote
interdependent work (Pellicer & Anderson, 1995).

20
The bureaucratic structures so common in school organizations result in teacher
isolation. Across their workday, teachers lack access to one another (Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2001). This lack of access inhibits leadership work among teachers. Ovando (1996) studied
the effect of teacher leadership on the teaching practices of 25 teacher leaders. She found
that participants frequently used planning and conferencing time for leadership activities,
lacked time and resources for the clerical duties involved in their leadership work, and
missed opportunities to work on their leadership skills, despite professional development
opportunities.
The traditional norms of teaching (autonomy, egalitarianism, and seniority) as
described by Johnson and Donaldson (2007), exert powerful and persistent influence on the
work of teacher leaders. These norms, reinforce the privacy of the individuals classroom,
limit the exchange of good ideas among colleagues, and suppress efforts to recognize expert
teaching (Johnson & Donaldson, 2007, p. 4). Ultimately, this privatization of teaching
hinders teachers ability to assist one another in providing quality instruction.
Reinventing Teacher Norms
The collective efforts of principals, teacher leaders and teachers themselves help
redefine the norms of teaching and support the work of teacher leaders. As principals
encourage the creation of new norms that promote collaboration, bridge classroom
boundaries, and recognize expertise, teachers construct a collective sense of their
instructional capacity and teacher leaders emerge (Johnson & Donaldson, 2007).
New cultural norms that support teacher leadership include: (a) purposeful
conversations with corresponding listening (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; Wellman & Lipton, 2007), (b) effective collaboration (Bunting, 1998; Scribner,

21
Sawyer, Watson, & Meyers, 2007; Sugar & Warren, 2003), (c) willingness to participate
(Smylie, 1992), (d) new working relationships (Datnow & Costellano, 2002; Murphy, 2005;
Silva et al. 2000; Yukl, 1994), and (e) professional communities of practice (Eilers &
Camacho, 2007; Printy, 2002, 2008; Scribner, Hager, & Warne, 2002;Wenger, 1998).
Purposeful conversations. Teacher leaders encourage professional growth by
engaging colleagues in purposeful conversations about teaching practices (Wellman &
Lipton, 2007). They provide the first lines of support for classroom and school improvement
efforts. Wellman and Lipton (2007) encourage effective learning-based dialogs that occur in
a safe environment. A differentiated approach to these conversations may be necessary as
teacher leaders coach, collaborate, or consult depending on the colleagues stance. A clear
focus on data helps to sustain instructional conversations (Reeves, 2002). However, the
degree to which teachers engage depends directly upon teacher leaders ability to effectively
frame conversations about data (Wellman & Lipton, 2007). Indeed, high-performing teacher
leaders learn to focus attention and resources where they make the greatest difference
(Leithwood et al., 2004).
Effective collaboration. Administrators encourage teacher leaders by affirming their
work and collaborating with them. Effective collaboration develops trust between teachers
and administrators, which in turn, fosters an environment to conduct focused conversations.
The literature indicates the importance of collaboration. Sherman (2000) suggested that
principals who blend strong instructional leadership with a collaborative style lead highperforming schools as evidenced by student achievement data. This view is consistent with
Patterson and Patterson (2004), who said, Principals who value and support teachers in

22
developing their skills recognize that school goals can only be accomplished with a
committed cadre of teacher leaders (p. 78).
Teacher leaders also collaborate with each other to provide instructional guidance,
improvement, innovation, and leadership (Sugar & Warren, 2003). Through collaboration,
teacher leaders can self-direct their own development or assist in the development of their
colleagues. Bunting (1998) identified collegiality, reflection, and life experience as ways
that teachers can directly participate in their own professional development. Building on
these three themes, administrators can also encourage teachers toward greater autonomy in
their leadership development.
The importance of principals developing networks within the school culture is clearly
documented in the literature, especially as related to restructuring and change (Fullan, 2002;
Goldman, Dunlap, & Conley, 1993; Prestine, 1991). Slater (2008) suggested, knowing
people is crucial in developing the trust and respect that characterize collaborative
relationships (p. 61). Slaters qualitative study of collaboration among principals, parents,
and teachers demonstrated that leaders used several communication techniques to encourage
shared leadership and to build human and organizational capacity. Effective
communication is instrumental in establishing collaborative relationships and is a key aspect
of building leadership capacity in a school (Slater, 2008, p. 55).
Few research projects have investigated stakeholder knowledge about experiences
with collaboration. Slater (2008) attempted to fill some of this void by describing and
analyzing the understandings of individuals who were engaged in collaborative work in their
schools. In addition to exploring stakeholder views, Slater examined the perceptions that
principals and other stakeholders had regarding the principals role and responsibilities in

23
fostering and supporting collaboration in an elementary school setting. Slater interviewed a
focus group composed of 16 individuals from 14 different elementary schools in a large
school district in Western Canada. The group represented a broad range of stakeholder roles
in an elementary school such as parents, principals, assistant/vice principals, and teachers. In
addition to focus group data he examined field notes, interviews and correspondence with
participants.
Based on the evidence from this study, principals employ various communication
skills to build trusting relationships that promote leadership opportunities and build capacity
in others. Participants identified the following basic communication skills: (a) listening, (b)
verbal and non-verbal communication, (c) openness, and (d) empathy as essential to building
collaborative relationships. As schools increase in complexity, it has become more important
for every stakeholder to step up to the leadership challenges that are consistent with and build
upon their individual strengths, skills, and experience using effective communication
strategies.
With a focus on secondary teachers, Sawyer (2001) examined how three teachers
deepened their development of agency and initiative to work towards personal self-renewal
and school change by collaborating with their peers. These teachers worked in schools that
may be characterized as having non-collaborative cultures. The following questions guided
Sawyers study: What did some of the teachers collaborative structures look like over
time? How did the teachers perceive contexts of support from both within and outside the
classroom for their collaborative efforts? How did this support change at different points as
these teachers careers unfolded (p. 2)? The larger issue of how teachers through their own
initiative can work together for personal renewal and school reform framed these questions.

24
The study drew from data collected as part of a more extensive ten-year study of the
recruitment, preparation, teaching, induction, and retention of alternate route and college
prepared teachers (Natriello & Zumwalt, 1992). A narrative method was selected to study
the continuity in the lives of the individual teachers. Both descriptive and explanatory
narratives (Polkinghorne, 1988) were used. According to Polkinghorne (1988), the purpose
of descriptive narrative is to produce an accurate description of the interpretive narrative
accounts individuals or groups use to make sequences of events in their lives or organizations
meaningful (pp. 161-162). In explanatory narrative, the interest is to account for the
connection between events in a causal sense and to provide the necessary narrative accounts
that supply the connections (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 16). Sawyer used a narrative
approach in an attempt to capture the richness and nuances of meaning, as well as ambiguity
and dilemma in human affairs (Carter, 1993). Narrative approach also places an emphasis on
the connections between what humans think, know, and do as well as the reciprocal
relationship between the way that human thinking shapes behavior and knowing shapes
thinking (Behar-Horenstein & Morgan, 1995, p. 143).
Sawyers (2001) study examined how teacher collaborators arranged elements of
support over time for their collaborative work. He demonstrated the plausibility of
establishing collaborative school cultures over time through independent teacher leaders.
This contribution to the studies of collaboration and teacher leadership is intended to be the
creation of a new sense of meaning and significance with respect to the research topic than it
is to yield a set of knowledge claims (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 42).
School cultures with norms of collaboration greatly support teachers who collaborate
(Liberman, 1995; Little, 1993; McClaughlin, 1993). Such norms go beyond social

25
interaction to indicate innovation and learning in which teachers are enthusiastic about their
work and the focus is on devising strategies that enable all students to prosper (McLaughlin,
1993, p. 94).
A balance of conditions and elements undergird more successful approaches to
teacher collaboration and leadership. These elements include school cultures, department
sub-cultures, the development of meaningful content in context, and specific resources, such
as time (Sawyer, 2001). Researchers continue to investigate how teachers who emerge as
leaders find and structure support for their activities. Additionally, researchers are studying
how these elements may change or unfold at different points in teachers careers.
Willingness to participate. Teachers who are willing to participate in leadership
positions and who make substantive decisions about the school contribute to building
organizational capacity. Teacher participation in decision-making gives the principal access
to critical information that may impact student learning. Smylie (1992) explored the
organizational and psychological antecedents to teachers willingness to participate in
leadership positions in the areas of personnel, curriculum and instruction, and staff
development. Findings revealed that teacher-principal working relationships greatly
influenced teachers willingness to participate in school decisions (Smylie, 1992). This study
was conducted within a single school district where specific contractual agreements created
expanded opportunities for teachers to make program and policy decisions within their
schools. Although the findings were limited by the sample size, this study provides useful
insights into the promotion of teacher leadership experiences and teachers willingness to
make school decisions.

26
In a more recent study, Shelton, Birky, and Headley (2008) provided additional
evidence that when teacher leaders function within a collaborative leadership model, teachers
find more meaning and are more motivated to continue in their leadership roles. Shelton and
his colleagues specifically examined how high school administrators influence teacher
leadership in both positive and negative ways, particularly in an educational reform
environment. The researchers explored how principals encourage, discourage, and motivate
involvement in informal teacher leadership activities. Data from three studies spanning more
than a decade were collected from teacher leaders through individual interviews and surveys.
A synthesis of the three studies follows which highlight teaching norms that can reinvent
school cultures.
The first study (Shelton, 1993) compared the perception of high school teachers and
principals regarding the readiness and willingness of high school teachers to accept teacher
leadership roles. Participants in the study were identified from 191 public and nonpublic
schools in South Dakota. All high school principals were surveyed and a randomly selected
group of 191 teachers was selected to participate, using a stratified random sampling
technique to enable the selection of one teacher from each high school. Two instruments, the
Readiness Scale: Principal Rating Scale and the Readiness Scale: Teacher Rating Scale
were modified from existing instruments used in the Hambleton, Blanchard, and Hersey
(1988) research using leadership responsibilities developed by the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching (1988). A third instrument, the Leadership Description
Questionnaire, which contained two, four-point Likert-type scales was also used. This was
completed by each of the teacher respondents to identify actual or perceived involvement and
willingness to participate in a list of leadership responsibilities.

27
Data from the Shelton (1993) study were collected and analyzed based on responses
from 139 (72.7%) principals and 104 (54.5%) teachers with usable response totaling 243
(63.6%) from both teachers and principals. There were 87 (45.5% of the population)
matched responders (the principal and a teacher from the same high school). After analyzing
the results, Shelton (1993) identified the following conclusions:

High school principals rely on teachers years of experience to identify teacher

leaders.

System-level staff development is the major process for training teachers.

Participation on curricular and instructional committees is used to develop leadership

skills.

Teachers with 11 to 20 years of experience and 2 to 5 years at the same school rated
highest on the Readiness Scale.

Readiness readings increased for teachers with higher educational degrees, and

Teachers in smaller schools appeared most ready and willing to accept leadership
roles (p. 176).
The comparison of ratings between principals and teachers on the Readiness Scale

correlated moderately. The strongest correlation was measured for the leadership roles of
choosing textbooks or instructional materials and setting student behavior standards.
Negative correlations were measured for setting promotion or retention policies, deciding
how the school budget is spent, and tracking students into special classes. A very strong
correlation was noted among leadership roles based on current involvement compared to
willingness. Most teachers were involved in choosing textbooks and were least involved in

28
selecting administrators. Teachers were most willing to be involved in choosing
textbooks and least willing to evaluate teacher performance.
The first study presented an instrument that can assess a teachers interest in
assuming leadership roles. This tool can provide administrators with a method to measure a
teachers willingness and readiness for leadership roles. According to Shelton (1993), a key
to this tool is that roles can be shaped by the specific culture of a school and the professional
skill set of the teacher leader (p. 178).
In the second study, Birky (2002) provided additional data capturing the voice of
teacher leaders. The study participants included four informal teacher leaders at the
secondary level who had extensive involvement in educational reform and other leadership
activities. They were selected because of recommendations from their principals and peers,
based on the extent of their involvement in leadership roles. The participants completed a
survey and were interviewed using Seidmans (1991) model of hermeneutic phenomenology.
This approach allowed the researcher to be attentive to both descriptive and interpretative
methodologies and acknowledged that the facts of lived experiences are already
meaningfully experienced (Ajjawi & Higgs, 2007). The interviews were conducted as
conversations using the format described by Rubin and Rubin (1995). The open-ended
questions focused on the participants life history, details of their current experience, and
reflections on the meaning of those experiences in relation to teacher leadership. Data for
this research question came entirely from the open-ended questions asked during these
interviews and conversations.
Participants were never asked specifically how administrators encouraged or
discouraged their involvement. Yet, frequent references were made, both directly and

29
indirectly, to answer this question. Participants in the Birky (2002) study acknowledged how
important the administrators role was in their leadership involvement. Several themes
emerged from the data as to how administrators encouraged and discouraged teacher
leadership. These included: (a) verbal support, appreciation, and thanks; (b) spirit of
collaboration; and (c) support taking risks and embracing change.
Because the previous studies revealed insight into the administrators role in teacher
leadership, in their third study, Shelton, Birkey, & Headley (2004) sought additional data
from formal teacher leaders such as site council chairs. The purpose of this study was to
determine the perceptions of site council chairs in Oregon high schools regarding their
councils effectiveness and to determine the actual types of decisions that were currently
being made by councils. Site-based decision making and collaboration for school
improvement was studied by mailing surveys to site council chairs of the 228 Oregon high
schools.
The majority of respondents in this study indicated that the accomplishments of the
site councils were the reason their councils were effective. On the other hand, in describing
reasons why site councils were ineffective, the majority of responses dealt with site council
processes. These findings seemed to indicate that effective site councils worked together
well and focused on desired outcomes, whereas ineffective councils may not be able to agree
on appropriate procedures and goals, thereby bogging down in their work (Shelton et al.,
2008, p. 185). Time was the most frequently identified barrier to site council effectiveness.
Site council chairs also indicated that the level of participation in meetings, administration,
and lack of funding were additional barriers.

30
Almost all of the councils (86%) were involved in developing a school improvement
plan. Also, more than one-half of the councils were involved with designing staff
development, determining curricular needs and changes, and in determining types of bell
schedules. Furthermore, site council chairs desired greater involvement in the following
types of decisions: (a) using 21st Century programs and grants; (b) planning for diversity,
poverty, and cultural competency; and (c) developing budgets for professional development.
Shelton et al.s (2004) final study about site council chairs included recommendations
for policy, procedures, and practices that promote teacher leadership. These
recommendations were made for local school personnel and state-level policy makers. The
implication of preparing educators to collaborate for increased effectiveness of schools, and
not to solely implement a new-teacher induction/mentoring or teacher leadership program,
was a proposed priority.
The implications from these three studies are valuable for school administrators
consideration (Birky, 2002; Shelton, 1993; Shelton et al., 2004). If teacher leaders are to be
key players in reform efforts and school improvement efforts, perhaps principals should
understand what specifically motivates and what discourages teachers to be leaders.
Principals can then create collaborative environments in which teachers who are willing and
able to lead are empowered to guide their colleagues to increased personal and professional
satisfaction as well as student success (Shelton et al., 2008, p. 188).
Shelton et al. (2008) asserted that administrators play an important role in whether or
not teachers are motivated to perform leadership functions. They further claimed that when
teacher leaders are encouraged in their role, educational reform and student success is more
possible. Therefore, leadership does matter. The leadership style of the principal can either

31
encourage or discourage teachers to be ready or willing to take leadership roles. As reform
demands continue to impact schools, principals develop communities of practice to engage
teachers in new working relationships and meaningful leadership opportunities that help to
improve schools.
Forging new working relationships. With influence identified as a primary means
of exercising leadership (Yukl, 1994), it is no surprise that building relationships with
colleagues and the principals emerges as a key factor that supports teacher leadership (Silva
et al., 2000). Murphy (2005) states, Relationships between principals and teachers form the
cauldron in which new understandings of leadership will be forged and new forms of teacher
leadership will materialize (p. 130). New working relationships between teachers and
administrators are necessary to promote teacher leadership. The nature of these relationships
needs to be jointly negotiated (Datnow & Costellano, 2002, p. 26).
Teacher leaders understand the importance of creating supportive relationships with
their colleagues. Silva et al. (2000) used a case study approach to describe the experiences of
three teacher leaders who attempted to lead while maintaining their classroom
responsibilities. The analysis of these case studies resulted in understanding how building
relationships can contribute to developing teams. The teachers also provided insight into
how teacher leaders nurture relationships to facilitate change in schools. By recognizing
work, providing expert help, and compromising, teacher leaders established trusting
relationships with colleagues that supported the conceptualization of third wave teacher
leadership. These trusting relationships led to effective, ongoing collaboration where
teachers self-reflected about their teaching practice and learned from each other.

32
The success of teacher leadership depends on the school culture, relationships, and
structures in which it takes place. If school leaders do not pay attention to how these norms
support or inhibit teacher leadership, then there is little chance that teacher leadership will
help to improve schools. Principals who intentionally empower teachers to become leaders
and provide a supportive environment for teacher leadership to flourish can influence
teaching and student learning.
Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers (1992) reviewed the literature on the conditions of
teachers and principals work in schools that form the contexts of new working relationships.
They employed a micropolitical perspective that allowed a developmental view of
teacher-principal relationships as a dynamic, interactive, intentional, transactional process
grounded in individuals beliefs and expectations as well as the social and normative contexts
of the school (Smylie & Brownlee-Conyers, 1992, p. 151). This perspective suggested how
teachers and principals previous work orientations and roles, including previous working
relationships, might influence the development of these new relationships. It also directed
the researchers to study the roles that interpersonal competence and strategic interaction play
in shaping these new working relationships.
As a result of their micropolitical approach, Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers (1992),
found strategic, interactive, contextual aspects of teacher leadership and suggested several
propositions about the development of teacher leadership and concomitant development of
new teacher leader-principal working relationships (p. 179). These propositions were
bounded by the particular work redesign initiative and school district context of the study.
Nonetheless, the findings suggested significant issues for further inquiry.

33
Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers (1992) established four important findings. First, they
found that reducing ambiguities and uncertainties associated with new teacher leadership
roles are critical to the development of new working relationships between teachers who
assume those roles and their principals. The second finding identified the ways in which
principals and teacher leaders defined their roles and relationships appeared closely related to
the expectations, interests, and prerogatives that they bring in to their new relationships.
According to these findings, principals and teacher leaders may act to shape new roles and
relationships in their own images. Where those images differed, principals and teacher
leaders attempts to shape new roles and relationships may result in interpersonal tension,
role conflict, and perhaps lower levels of task accomplishment.
Third, the findings also suggested that principals and teacher leaders do indeed evoke
strategies that influence the development of new roles and working relationships. Those
strategies were aimed at shaping both task-related and interpersonal dimensions of
relationships. Just as the directions in which principals and teacher leaders attempted to shape
roles and relationships, their identification and evocation of strategies appeared to be related
to initial conceptions of roles and working relationships.
These findings revealed that events not directly associated with their day-in and dayout work may have played a significant role in the development of new teacher leaderprincipal working relationships. These events may have a catalytic effect on new working
relationships, or they may serve to reinforce the influence of strategy and experience
(Smylie & Brownlee-Conyers, 1992, p. 179). For the teachers and principals in this study,
these events were considered to have positive influences on working relationships. For other

34
teachers, it is certainly possible that such events might have deleterious effects as well
(Smylie & Brownlee-Conyers, 1992, p. 180).
Lastly, the findings suggested that the development new working relationships
between teacher leaders and principals may involve a progression from an inward focus on
self-interest, and the interpersonal dimensions of the relationship itself, to symbiosis and a
focus on tasks. This is not to suggest that these working relationships necessarily became
productive in terms of task accomplishment. It also does not suggest that teacher leaders and
principals necessarily abandon all interests, prerogatives, perspectives, and expectations that
they bring to these relationships. What this shift suggested was that initial interests,
prerogatives, and perspectives may be successfully negotiated, accommodated, and
incorporated so that teacher leaders and principals can turn more attention to the pursuit of
other interests related to the tasks of leadership, such as school improvement.
An important implication of these findings is that the success of new teacher-principal
relationships related not only to the structure of the new teacher roles and working
relationships, but to the development of the interpersonal dimensions of the relationship.
Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers (1992) suggested the establishment of new teacher work
roles may bring principals and teachers into collaborative working relationships for the first
time (p. 180). Because they may have never or infrequently worked together on common
issues, they may have no history of trust on which to build their new relationships. Indeed,
they may lack knowledge to understand one another adequately and lack skills to negotiate
their relationships effectively. The findings raise important issues concerning the principal
or administrators role in teacher leadership development. Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers

35
(1992) also address the impact principals have in establishing school cultures that develop
functional principal-teacher leader working relationships.
Establishing professional communities of practice. Eilers and Camacho (2007)
examined the role principals and specialized supports play in promoting professional
communities. Evidence from their research suggests that professional communities have the
capacity to make a positive change in school culture. Using a mixed-method approach,
Eilers and Camacho (2007) studied Whitman Elementary, a K-5 school located in a lowincome urban neighborhood with a highly mobile population. At the time of the new
principals arrival, nearly 90% of the students received free or reduced lunch. Forty-nine
percent (49%) of the students received English language learner (ELL) services, and 10%
received special education services. The majority of the students (91%) were AfricanAmerican, African, or Hispanic American. For three years, Whitman Elementary was on the
state list of schools not achieving annual yearly progress (AYP), a No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) requirement.
Data collection for this mixed-methods study included classroom observations,
structured interviews, focus groups, and a teacher survey over more than two years of
fieldwork in both the school and district contexts. This study of school culture demonstrated
an improvement in professional communities of practice, shared leadership, and evidencebased practice when a proactive principal engenders central office support and draws on
internal and external supports to advance his vision for culture change and increase student
performance.
The principals visibility and his participation in all professional development
activities were also essential to promoting school change and increasing teacher ownership of

36
those changes. Schools that depend on leadership throughout the system, spreading and
finding leadership within and outside of it, are the schools that learn and perform at high
levels (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 393).
Findings from another study by Scribner et al. (2002) made a strong case for fostering
professional communities of practice in schools. This comparative case study was guided by
a phenomenological approach to exploring the perceptions of teachers and principals
surrounding the issue of professional community in two urban high schools. Using
qualitative methodology, the researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews as
the primary strategy to study the phenomenon of teacher professional community. Data
analysis was performed by comparing data units coded from interview transcriptions and
field notes.
This study highlighted two important dimensions of professional communities. First,
it affirmed that achieving strong professional community is largely a micropolitical process
that requires attention to building shared identity. As confirmed in the Eilers and Camacho
(2007) study, the principals role was also critical in nurturing shared identity created out of
professional autonomy and attention to individual needs.
Wengers (1998) seminal work explored professional communities of practice by
investigating the idea that learning is primarily a social rather than an individual
phenomenon. He asserted that knowledge is a matter of practical competence gained through
participation and engagement in the social realm of particular communities of practice. The
key to learning depended on the negotiation of interpersonal meanings and the personal and
social identity that resulted from this interaction. Wenger conceptualized learning in a broad
and dynamic sense.

37
Mutual engagement around a shared vision and mission is key to meaningful practice
in which community forms. Wenger (1998) believed that communities of practice are built
around a shared history of learning. Community members negotiate learning experiences
through the interaction of two processes, namely participation and reification. Participation
encompasses aspects of experience. It refers to the process of taking part and being a
community member by relating to others and engaging in social actions that provide group
identity. Reification, on the other hand, is a more abstract process. Wenger (1998) uses
reification to convey the idea that what is turned into a concrete, material object is not
properly a concrete, material object (p. 58). He uses two examples to explain reification.
One example is making representations of justice as a blindfolded maid holding a scale.
Another example was using the expression, the hand of fate (p. 58).
Wenger (1998) provided an accessible framework relevant to educators. His
conception of communities of practice implies that learning is a bottom-up process, which
cannot be based on forced roles and divisions of labor between learners and non-learners.
Communities of practice decide what constitutes meaningful learning and their focus on
identified learning targets. As communities of practice organize their own learning, they
access and engage with associated communities. Decision-making involves combining
different types of knowledge in a mutually informative way. Thus, the power to define or
adapt communities of practice is distributed and shared.
To investigate communities of practice in a high school context, Printy (2002) studied
participation patterns and resultant professional impact for secondary school teachers.
Nearly all investigations of communities of practice are qualitative (Printy, 2008, p. 190).
This study, however, employed quantitative methods to test Printys hypothesis that

38
participation in communities of practice encouraged teachers to learn from each others
expertise, increased their sense of competence, and improved the willingness of teachers to
use student-centered techniques that were aligned to national standards. Printy (2002)
particularly focused on the extent to which formal leaders influenced the formation of
productive communities of practice and the extent to which leaders affected teachers
professional beliefs and instructional skills.
Printy (2008) defined communities of practice to reflect the social learning inherent
in teachers purposeful activity with a broad range of school members around curriculum,
instruction, and student performance (p. 202). She conceptualized communities of practice
according to the three dimensions described by Wenger (1998), each of which represent
opportunities for learning: (a) mutual engagement, (b) joint enterprise, and (c) shared
repertoire.
Printys findings suggested that both principals and department chairpersons are
instrumental in shaping opportunities for teachers to learn in communities of practice.
Furthermore, results showed that principals were well removed from the instructional
concerns of teachers and that department chairpersons might serve to slow down the rate of
instructional change. Departmental leadership was the most influential factor in determining
the quality of teachers participation in communities of practice.
Printy (2008) identified two elements influencing teachers engagement in
communities of practice. Principals and department chairs in turn, influenced these elements.
The elements included: (a) leaders establish a rationale for learning required by non-routine
activities related to instruction and (b) leaders create conditions for rich interactions and
broad-based learning opportunities.

39
Printy (2008) also delineated implications that described how leaders might influence
teachers beliefs and practices, calling on leaders to relate more effectively with teachers.
These implications were: (a) leaders know how teachers learn sufficiently to scaffold their
knowledge development; (b) leaders engage in sense-making as legitimate members who
model learning; and (c) leaders structure learning meetings with guided activities. In
productive communities of practice, teachers have more opportunities to learn, which
enhances their beliefs and skills. Printys (2008) study revealed that departmental leadership
is the most influential factor in determining the quality of teachers participation in
communities of practice (p. 214). These findings suggest that organizational structures
within schools must change to allow meaningful learning opportunities for teachers and
effective ways for leaders to influence teachers beliefs and practices.
Rethinking Organizational Structures
One would expect that a profession dedicated to learning would be structured in such
a way that its members would learn from one another. In this light, the isolation of teachers
from other adults in a school constitutes a glaring anomaly. Teacher isolation impedes
professional growth by making it difficult for teachers to exchange ideas among themselves
and with administrators. At all levels of the organization, isolation is the enemy of
improvement (Elmore, 2004).
According to Elmore (2004), unless there is radical change in the structure of school
leadership, few schools will be able to rise to the challenge of enabling all students to meet
high standards (p. 1). Elmore promotes a new vision for school leadership that does not
reside with individuals, but is instead distributed and shared with all members of the school
community. Similar to mutual engagement in communities of practice, school leaders

40
should be fully accountable not only to one another and to teachers, but also to parents and
students.
Elmore (2004) believes shared leadership should guide instructional improvement
with everything else being secondary. To change the focus and the organizational structures,
multiple sources of guidance and direction are needed. Elmore (2004) strongly supports
distributed or shared leadership practices that create a common culture of expectations for
adult and student learning as well as collective accountability for student results.
Silva et al. (2000) conducted an exploratory descriptive case study that suggested the
need to rethink organizational structures that inhibit as well as facilitate teacher leadership
within the classroom. The study contributed to the understanding of third wave teacher
leadership by describing the findings from three exploratory case studies of teacher leaders
who led from within the classroom on behalf of students. Silva et al. (2000) used Wasleys
(1991) definition of third wave teacher leaders as those who enable their colleagues to
improve professional practice by doing things they would not ordinarily do on their own.
Wasley (1991) claimed that teacher leaders are those who help redesign schools, mentor
their colleagues, engage in problem solving at the school level, and provide professional
growth activities for colleagues (p. 5).
Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998) supported this conceptualization of teacher leadership
with their insistence that teacher leadership be grounded in the teachers work with his or her
students. According to this conceptualization of teacher leadership, teacher leaders would
willingly collaborate with other teachers, discuss common problems, and share approaches to
various learning situations. Additionally, teacher leaders explored ways to overcome the
structural constraints of limited time, space, resources, and, restrictive policies, and

41
investigated motivational strategies to bring students to a deeper engagement with their
learning.
Silva et al. (2000) identified several important considerations for those interested in
facilitating teacher leadership by reforming teacher education and supervision. These
included: (a) the need to teach pre-service and in-service teachers to walk in both the world
of students and the world of schools as organizations; (b) the need to provide principals with
the tools to create and respect authentic space for teacher to carry the voices of students; and
(c) the need to change the culture and structure of schools so that they value developing
teachers over developing efficient and effective structure.
Changing the culture and structures of schools to value people over efficient,
effective structures remains a great challenge. Structure in schools remains necessary and
inevitable. Organizationally, schools have bureaucratic structures that can be experienced by
teachers and students alike as rigid, autocratic, and alienating. However, Hoy and Sweetland
(2001) assert that schools have bureaucratic structures because they need appropriately
designed formal procedures and hierarchical structures to prevent chaos and promote
efficiency.
Hoy and Sweetland (2001) studied the bureaucratic structure of schools by examining
their positive and negative consequences and reconciling two conflicting views of the
consequences of bureaucracy. They also created and tested a new construct of school
structure termed enabling structure. In addition, they developed a theoretical argument for
four types of school structures based on the bureaucratic dimensions of formalization and
centralization. Formalization is the degree to which the organization has written rules,
regulations, procedures, and policies (p. 297). Whereas, centralization of authority is the

42
locus of control for organizational decision-making; it is the degree to which employees
participate in decision-making (p. 299).
Hoy and Sweetland (2001) found the more enabling the school bureaucracy, the
greater the degree of faculty trust in the principal, the less truth spinning, and the less role
conflict. Enabling schools were imbued with faculty members who trusted their principals,
who were disinclined to spin the truth, and who suffered from much less role conflict than
did their colleagues in schools with hindering structures (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001, p. 313).
They discovered that it is important for principals and administrators to understand that
schools can be designed with formal procedures and hierarchical structure that can promote
teacher leadership. Enabling schools that encourage trusting relationships between teachers
and between teachers and their principal create collaborative cultures where teachers view
principals as leaders who share opportunities for leadership development.
However, as accountability and standards-based reform have become the focus of
policy makers and schools, principals are challenged in developing organizational structures
that commit to shared leadership. Furthermore, critics of accountability-based reforms have
suggested that teacher commitment is in jeopardy. Smith and Rowley (2005) used the
nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey to suggest that schools with a stronger
commitment strategy may have better success in achieving reform goals largely due to
increased participation in content-related professional development and greater stability in its
teaching staff. The researchers used Rowans (1990) models for the organizational design in
schools to frame their study. The first model, a control strategy, relied on externally
determined input, behavior, and output controls to standardize teaching and students
opportunities to learn. Rowans (1990) second organizational strategy was oriented toward

43
enhancing teacher commitment by rejecting bureaucratic controls in favor of collaborative
and participative management strategies as the primary means for improving teaching quality
and student achievement.
Smith and Rowley (2005) linked organizational strategies to the way in which
teachers view the role of in-service training and to other professional development
opportunities. Their study examined how the mix between control and commitment
strategies influences teachers investment in professional development activities and,
ultimately the likelihood that they will stay teaching in the same school for another year.
Smith and Rowley proposed that professional development is more than just a tool for
increasing teaching; it can also serve to increase teachers commitment to teaching and
reduce teacher turnover. Furthermore, the researchers stressed the importance of
understanding the relationship between professional development participation and retention,
as well as how control and commitment strategies mediate this relationship.
More specifically, Smith and Rowley (2005) used Rowans (1990) commitment and
control lens to examine how organizational context such as participation in decision-making,
level of collaboration in the school, degree of administrative support, and positive social
climate has a direct influence on teacher turnover, as well as an indirect influence by
conditioning the effectiveness of teacher professional development activities in reducing
teacher turnover. First, they investigated the degree to which indicators of teachers level of
control over their classroom practice and their degree of influence over school-level policy
making were associated with increased participation in professional development activities.
Next, the researchers examined how indicators of teacher control over classroom practices

44
and influence over school-level policy combine with participation in professional
development activities to reduce the likelihood of teacher turnover.
This study provided an initial step in understanding the relationship between
professional development and teacher retention and how this relationship is affected by
organizational characteristics. The findings suggested that school organizational factors
influence teachers participation in professional development and that, in turn, professional
development affects teachers retention. Professional development participation was higher
in school where teachers had more in schools where teachers had more relative influence
over policy compared to other decision makers. Smith and Rowley (2005) also found that
teachers were more likely to participate in professional development activities in schools
with more collaborative environments.
Teacher commitment and collaborative school cultures allow opportunities for
teachers to become leaders. Principals play a key role in rethinking and developing
organizational structures and functions that support teacher leaders. Mangin (2007)
conducted an exploratory study, which investigated conditions that led elementary principals
to support the work of school-based instructional teacher leaders. Mangin believed that
teacher leader effectiveness depended on principal support and, acknowledged the lack of
research about how principals interact with formal teacher leaders. Her study aimed to close
this gap in the literature by examining two possible conditions for teacher leader support:
principals knowledge of teacher leadership roles and their interaction with teacher leaders.
Additionally, Mangin investigated how district communication structures influenced
principal support for teacher leaders.

45
The continuing pressure to improve measurable student outcomes has promoted
teacher leadership as an instructional reform strategy in schools. In Mangins study, teachers
assumed the role of math teacher leaders who were released full-time from teaching
responsibilities to help colleagues improve their mathematics instruction. Despite, the
perceived benefits of these roles, the question remained about their capacity to produce
significant instructional reform. Acknowledging formidable challenges which teacher
leaders face, Mangin emphasized the need for further research into the conditions necessary
to effectively facilitate teacher leaders work as instructional reformers.
Findings from this study indicated a link between principals level of support and
their combined knowledge of the teacher leadership role and interaction with teacher leaders.
The study also revealed that communication from district-level supervisors who oversee
teacher leadership initiatives could influence principals knowledge and interaction.
Although the study did not examine all possible influential conditions, the link between
knowledge, interaction, and support has important implications for the teacher leadership
initiatives. Because teacher leaders need support from principals, it is critical that school
districts communicate with principals about the work that teacher leaders do.
Conclusion
In an era of high accountability, principals and administrators need to work in parallel
fashion with teachers to meet the requirements of external mandates such as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). The NCLB Act is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the central federal law in K-12 education. NCLB requires that students
collectively and quantifiably produce a certain level of achievement each year in order to
meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). To make AYP, schools receiving Title I federal

46
funds must meet participation and performance requirements on mathematics and
reading/language arts tests aligned with state academic standards. Schools must also perform
adequately on a state-determined additional indicator. In California, this indicator is the high
school graduation rate and in K-8, growth in the Academic Performance Index (API), the
states own measure of academic performance. All students are required to reach 100
percent proficiency by 2013-14. In light of high accountability measures, schools are
required to focus on local, state and national reforms.
To address these school reforms, principals must create working conditions that
encourage positive relationships, reduce risks, and provide leadership development
(Pankake & Moller, 2007, p.32). Schools can promote teacher leadership by developing new
working relationships, creating professional communities of practice, and rethinking
organizational structures. The result of effective teacher leadership is a collaborative school
culture where the principal and the teachers are working together as a community of learners.
In a synthesis of literature on educational leadership with emerging trends in school
reform and accountability, Marsh (2000) further confirmed that previous attempts to identify
school leadership with a strong role accorded to the principal are outmoded. He cited
research suggesting that the former role of the principal as solitary instructional leader is
inadequate given the strong emphasis on student learning results and high-stakes
accountability (p. 126). Marsh advanced an integrated leadership concept that envisioned
principals primarily as strategic leaders who nurture cultural transformation and
empowerment of teachers. In these strategic roles, principals also link management services
with increased student achievement and provide substantive program leadership by
restructuring schoolwork around high-performance teams.

47
This literature review concludes that teacher leadership is important to administrators,
especially in light of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Schools are constantly evaluating
their effectiveness and pursuing ways to ensure that all students are learning.
Acknowledging this monumental task, principals strategically influence more teachers to
become change agents and leaders.
The DNA of teacher leadership is interactive in design and relational in form
(Murphy, 2005, p. 31). Through collaboration and parallel leadership, principals understand
the important roles of teacher leaders. Skilled principals understand and commit to
establishing trusting relationships that nurture teacher collaboration and decision-making.
Teacher leaders imbue schools with hope by envisioning a future where they and their
colleagues continuously deepen their own practice and become architects of vibrant
professional communities.

48
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Blending quantitative and qualitative approaches generally allows greater depth of
understanding and insight than what is possible using just one approach (Roberts, 2004, p.
110). Given that the purpose of this study was to explore teacher leadership in program
improvement high schools, a mixed methods research design allowed the researcher to
survey the prevalence of teacher leadership and then use naturalistic inquiry to validate or
expand quantitative results with qualitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). As such,
this investigation employed an explanatory, sequential mixed methods approach in four
phases, beginning with the administration of a survey to obtain statistical results from four
comprehensive secondary schools within program improvement status. The investigation
then used case study methodology to further examine the secondary school, which had a
strong presence of teacher leadership and had shown steady improvements in student
achievement.
This chapter presents a detailed description of the research design, population and
sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and rationale for data analysis methods.
Specifically, the following research questions were addressed:
1. How do administrators and teachers in persistently under-performing high schools,
labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders?
2. To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement high schools?

49
3. What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
high schools?
This study applied a conceptual framework for teacher leadership grounded in and
extending the findings from the review of literature. It documented key understandings about
teacher leadership and suggested a path by which teacher leaders can improve their practice
and influence student learning. This conceptual framework was also conceived as a theory of
action for teacher leadership. There are four major components in the framework (see Figure
1 on page 50). The first component provides the foundational elements needed to identify
and enable teacher leadership in school cultures. This component was largely drawn from
the existing literature (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). The dimensions of school culture help
to identify the norms of teacher practice, the second component, which support teacher
leaders and engage them in collaboration. The norms of practice, within a collaborative
school culture, enable teachers to become leaders. The next component identifies
characteristics of teacher leaders in school cultures where teacher leadership is thriving.
These characteristics include respect, trust, learning orientation, and leadership ability. In the
last component, teacher leaders create and participate in communities of practice such as
professional learning communities, instructional leadership teams, and school site councils
where they may change or improve their teaching and leadership practices with the goal of
positively impacting student learning. This theory of action proposes that school cultures,
robust with teacher leadership, may influence and improve student learning.
The cyclical process of the framework fosters an ongoing dialogue about classroom
practices and student achievement. Teacher leaders assume autonomy, determine a focus for
inquiry or investigation about student learning, and analyze student achievement data. All

50
teachers participate in a plan of action as they address specific student achievement issues.
The student outcomes determine any collective change in pedagogy, curriculum or
assessment. The cyclical nature of the framework indicates overlap among the four major
components as each specifically or collectively supports student learning and teacher
practice.

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Teacher Leadership.

Research Design
An explanatory, sequential mixed methods design was used to investigate teacher
leadership. According to Creswell (2009), the straightforward nature of this design is one of

51
its main strengths (p. 211). This design involved collecting qualitative data after a
quantitative phase to explain or follow up on the quantitative data in more depth. Permission
was obtained to employ Katzenmeyer and Mollers (2001) Teacher Leadership School
Survey (TLSS) allowing the researcher to measure teachers perceptions of how their own
schools modeled effective practices in supporting teacher leadership (see Appendix A). The
seven dimensions measured by the TLSS were examined within the context of four program
improvement secondary schools in a large secondary school district in Southern California
included: (a) developmental focus; (b) recognition; (c) autonomy; (d) collegiality; (e)
participation; (f) open communication; and (g) positive environment. The results of the
quantitative phase directed the researcher to further study the school with highest degree of
perceived teacher leadership by using case study methodology.
In the first, quantitative phase, this study examined the relationship between seven
dimensions of teacher leadership as they pertained to teachers in four identified program
improvement comprehensive secondary schools. By using the Teacher Leadership School
Survey (Katzenmeyer & Moeller, 2001), the researcher explored the seven dimensions
measured by the instrument, which were the independent variables. Teacher leadership was
the dependent, continuous variable.
The TLSS measured the supports for teacher leaders as they collaborated with the site
administrators and their peers to improve student achievement. By specifically focusing in
program improvement schools, this study added to the body of research on the supports for
teacher leaders within a school culture where students are not achieving and schools are
restructuring. The quantitative phase addressed teachers perceptions of actions, which
supported or inhibited teacher leadership. As an explanatory study, it is intended to provide

52
insight into utilizing teacher leadership as a way for implementing changes in teaching
practices and addressing student achievement gaps.
Quantitative methodology allowed the researcher to closely study the variables that
develop teacher leaders and increase the understanding of teacher leadership. Shavelson
(1996) asserted that research and theory building in the behavioral sciences is aimed at not
only providing an index of the relationship between two variables, as the correlation
coefficient does, but also improving predictions by specifying a functional relationship
between two variables (p. 180). Hence, establishing a systematic relationship between the
variables that predict teacher leadership will be examined in this study.
The qualitative stage addressed the next three phases of the study, which focused on
the prevalence of teacher leadership in the four program improvement secondary schools.
After tabulating the TLSS results, a numerical value for each of the dimensions resulted for
each school. The higher numerical values indicated a definitive school culture that supported
the development of teacher leadership. The school that manifested a strong presence of
teacher leadership, a high numerical value, and that is making significant progress towards
exiting program improvement status was studied in greater depth using case study
methodology.
Program improvement indicates that the school has not met federal benchmarks
according to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Under this act, schools and
states are required to publish annual report cards as an accountability measure. Also, those
schools and districts receiving federal funding from Title I are required to demonstrate
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of student achievement.

53
NCLB requires that students collectively and quantifiably produce a certain level of
achievement each year. The rate of achievement is based on a formula that uses 2001-2002
student achievement data as the baseline. Districts and states are required to show consistent
AYP growth for 95 percent of students tested, including students with disabilities taking
alternative assessments as well as disaggregated groups regarding students ethnic/racial, and
socio-economic backgrounds. Consistent AYP growth requires that those tested achieve
consistent increments toward proficiency through the academic year 2013-14.
Using descriptive, single case study methodology, the researcher described the roles
that teacher leaders assumed as they collaborated with the site administrators and their peers
to address student achievement gaps. Additionally, the researcher investigated how teacher
leaders, individually or collectively, influence their peers and administrators to improve
teaching and learning practices with the goal of increased student achievement. Yin (2009)
views a descriptive case study as a research strategy that describes an intervention and the
real life context in which it occurred (p. 18). The case study also examined the principal
and teachers perceptions of actions, which supported or inhibited teacher leadership and
analyzed their evolving roles as leaders within a culture of change. As a descriptive case
study, it provided insight into utilizing teacher leadership as a way for implementing changes
in teaching practices and addressing student achievement challenges.
The research methods employed within this qualitative study included semistructured interviews and observations. These methods allowed the researcher to closely
study the problem and develop a better understanding of the phenomenon of teacher
leadership. Merriam (1998) proposed that case study is a method well suited for research
done in the school setting because the complexity of the school environment makes it

54
virtually impossible to isolate variables responsible for outcomes. She further asserted that a
qualitative case study clarified the complexities of a phenomenon by describing the context
and processes that are unique to the case, while providing descriptions of the participants
viewpoints and behaviors in a manner that illuminated the phenomenon and contributed to
deeper understanding of it (Merriam, 1998).
Population and Sample
This study initially explored teacher leadership in four comprehensive secondary
schools with program improvement status. The schools were part of a large, Southern
California secondary school district comprised of 14 comprehensive high schools, 14 middle
schools, 2 alternative secondary schools, and 1specialized school. The total district
enrollment is 42,000. The demographic breakdown of all students in the district are: 4.4%
African-American; 2% Asian; 9.2% Filipino; 72.9% Hispanic; and 10.1 % White.
Approximately 26 % of all students in the district are English learners.
In the quantitative phase, all teachers in four program improvement schools were
asked to complete the Teacher Leadership School Survey (see Appendix B). The educational
level, credential, number of years teaching, number of years teaching at the current school,
and identification as a formal teacher leader were collected as part of the survey (see
Appendix C). The researcher used a script to administer the surveys (see Appendix D). The
researcher then examined the survey data and demographic data from each of the four
schools to determine the case study school.
In the qualitative phase, the principal in the case study school was asked to identify
five teacher leaders at the site. The principal used the researchers definition of teacher
leaders to accomplish this task. According to the researcher, teacher leaders are teachers who

55
have the ability to effectively collaborate with colleagues for the purposes of influencing
change, increasing teacher expertise, and improving student and teacher learning. The
principal and teacher participants were asked to sign a consent form that delineated the
purposes of the study, identified confidentiality measures, and guaranteed no retaliation for
any information gained from the study (see Appendices E & F). All participants were
informed that their participation was voluntary. Confidentiality and the voluntary nature of
the teachers participation were emphasized to mitigate any discomfort they might
experience.
To protect against bias, the researcher, an assistant superintendent in a large, urban,
unified district, studied four program improvement secondary schools in a different district.
Therefore, the researcher had not supervised the principal or teachers in the study. Teacher
leaders participated actively in school-wide or district decision-making on a regular basis and
were highly regarded by the principal and their peers.
Quantitative Study
Implementing a single mixed methods design that best matched the research problem
made the study more manageable and easier to describe (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
This approach provided the researcher with a framework to guide the research methods of the
study. Initially, the study quantitatively addressed factors that promoted teacher leadership.
The researcher first conducted a survey with all teachers in four program improvement
secondary schools to measure the support for teacher leadership development.
Instrumentation
The Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS) created by Katzenmeyer and Moller
(2001) was used to measure teachers perceptions of how their schools model effective

56
practices in supporting teacher leadership. These areas or dimensions that support teacher
leadership included (a) developmental focus, (b) recognition, (c) autonomy, (d) collegiality,
(e) participation, (f) open communication, and (g) a positive environment. In their work with
over 5,000 teacher leaders, Katzenmeyer and Moller learned that schools vary in the degree
to which they support teacher leadership.
Teachers who participated in the study were asked to respond to 49 statements in the
TLSS survey (see Appendix B). Five choices were given for each statement to determine the
occurrence of the dimension in their respective school. The choices included (a) never, (b)
rarely, (c) sometimes, (d) often, and (e) always.
The researcher used the TLSS survey with all the teachers in the program
improvement schools who participated in the study. To increase response rates, the
researcher requested permission to conduct the survey during a faculty meeting at each
school. Survey data along with collected demographic data were quantitatively analyzed as
described in the data analysis section
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) in their extensive research with teacher leaders
acknowledged the differences in school cultures that support teacher leadership. The success
of teacher leadership depended on the context in which it takes place. They further asserted
that teacher leaders are critical actors to sustaining meaningful change in schools. Schools
that created supportive cultures for teacher leaders focus on measurable dimensions that are
essential to building teacher leadership. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) emphasized explicit
efforts must be made to develop the relationship between adults in the school, the
organizational structures must be created, and the principals actions must be aligned (p.

57
85). Each of these efforts impacts the success of teacher leadership and can affect student
achievement in program improvement schools.
Validity and reliability. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) employed a panel of
experts to establish the content validity of the TLSS survey. To attain content validity, over
300 teachers from different schools completed the survey. The panel of experts took these
data and completed a factor analysis to cluster survey items. Factors that had low score were
dropped from the survey. In its current form, the survey contains 49 items with seven items
for each dimension.
The panel of experts in collaboration with Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
determined the reliability of the survey by using Cronbachs Alpha also referred to as the
internal-consistency reliability. Cronbachs Alpha is actually estimated by the consistency of
all the items in the sum scales (Hill & Lewicki, 2006). Three hundred and twelve teachers
from 12 schools completed the final version of the TLSS. The panel used the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS) to complete reliability estimates. The results indicated that the seven
dimensions of the TLSS have above average reliability ranging from .83 to .93.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher used the TLSS survey to gather data and demographic information
about the participants. The survey was useful as the researcher worked with four program
secondary high schools. Surveys were free of researcher bias and posed no threat to the
respondents. However, two major disadvantages of using surveys are the low return rate and
the bias of the early returns (Katz, 1993).
To minimize the threat of a low return rate, the researcher conducted the survey at a
scheduled faculty meeting. Before the meeting, the researcher made initial contact with the

58
principals in the four secondary schools to confirm participation and gain permission to enter
the school. Survey data was collected during a four-week period.
Data Analysis Methods
The researcher conducted a descriptive analysis by examining the means and
frequencies of every survey question and each dimension of teacher leadership. Survey items
were ranked from highest to lowest. A high mean score indicated high level of support for
teacher leaders as perceived by teachers at their perspective sites. A low mean indicated that
the question or dimension of teacher leadership was not observed at their schools and could
be considered a barrier.
To determine which school scored highest on TLSS Leadership, schools were ranked.
To assess whether differences between schools were statistically significant, ANOVA was
conducted, with school as the independent variable and with overall TLSS Leadership as the
dependent variable. To detect differences between schools across the seven TLSS
dimensions, MANOVA was conducted, with pairwise comparisons to localize significant
effects. Differences were considered statistically significant at a threshold of p < .05.
Although a panel of experts has tested this correlation as described in the instrumentation
section, statistical significance of these factors was relevant in program improvement
schools. To promote understanding, group data was expressed as the mean, sample size (N),
standard deviation (SD), Minimum score (Min), Maximum (Max), and the standard error of
the mean (SEM) in tables and text, as appropriate. Figures were presented to visually display
differences between schools in TLSS Leadership.

59
Qualitative Study
Phases two, three, and four of the study employed case study methodology to
examine the program improvement secondary school with the highest level of teacher
leadership. Using a case study approach was a complex strategy, which entailed using
multiple methods (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). The following sections describe the
qualitative plan that systematically explored teacher leadership at the case study school,
which demonstrated a high degree of teacher leadership and significant progress in student
achievement.

Instrumentation
Multiple instruments were used to conduct interviews and perform observations. The
researcher constructed these instruments based on the existent literature and the research
questions. He consulted and collaborated with the dissertation chairperson and committee to
assist him in making informed, shared decisions about the development of instruments. The
feasibility of the study, as well as the audience, was also taken into consideration in the
development of the instruments.
The researcher used an interview protocol method to conduct semi-structured
interviews with teacher leaders and administrators (Merriam, 1998). A different list of
questions was developed for the interviews with teacher leaders and the principal (see
Appendices G & H). This method allowed the researcher to spontaneously develop a
conversation around teacher leadership and maximize opportunities for teacher leaders to
reveal honest perspectives and experiences.

60
Additionally, observations of professional learning community (PLC) meetings led by
teacher leaders or of different leadership groups where teachers are active participants were
conducted. During these observations, the researcher used a protocol guide and note taking
sheet to record conversations and study interactions that revealed the participants thinking
about teacher leadership (see Appendix I & J). Observations also deepened the
understanding of teacher leaders multiple roles and helped to identify school dimensions
necessary to promote teacher leadership in program improvement secondary schools.
Merriam (1998) suggested that observation of subjects might reveal thinking that participants
would not reveal in an interview.
Data Collection Procedures
In qualitative research, the researcher seeks to develop an in-depth understanding of
the case(s) through collecting multiple forms of data (Creswell & Maietta, 2002, p. 163).
Data was collected and analyzed through interviews, focus and observations. Document
analysis of artifacts such as Site Plans for Student Achievement, meeting agendas, and
minutes were conducted to inform the sample school profiles and the research questions.
The researcher also collected data using archival records (Yin, 2009). Archival data included
demographic information about the schools and the district, including historical student
achievement data.
Creating data collection instruments with similar questions allowed the researcher to
triangulate the data by comparing the responses from all data sources. The researcher coded
the data to perform a parallel analysis (see Appendix K). Triangulation is a data collection
method that was used to test the consistency of the findings. In this study, the researcher
used data triangulation to examine the questions from the principal interview, the teacher

61
leader interviews, and the observations. The most important advantage of using multiple
sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry (Yin, 2009, p. 115).
It was important to design interview protocols to conduct semi-structured interviews
with the teacher leaders and the principal. Participants were asked open-ended questions,
which were aligned to the research questions and the seven dimensions of teacher leadership.
The interviews also include follow-up questions to further explore and clarify responses.
Interview protocols for teachers and the principal were field tested with a non-participant
teacher and principal to determine the clarity of the questions and their functionality in
eliciting responses that inform themes based on the research questions. Interviews occurred
at the school site in a designated private office to maintain an uninterrupted interview
environment. These interviews were recorded on audiotape and transcribed by a third party.
Roberts (2004) warned that timing was a critical issue when collecting data since it can affect
response rates. Following Roberts suggestions, the researcher interviewed participants and
collect data in March and April to ensure enough time for data analysis and writing.
Observations of PLC meetings, as delineated in the instrumentation section, were
performed. The researcher observed teachers who were leading and interacting with other
teachers to provide deeper insights about teacher leadership roles and how school leaders
empowered them to lead. During the observations, field notes were completed to provide a
relatively incontestable description for further analysis and ultimate reporting (Stake, 1995,
p. 62).
Data Analysis Methods
Data were analyzed on an ongoing basis throughout the completion of the case study.
In this study, data and analysis took place in concert, so that the initial data informed the next

62
phase of collection by using insights that emerged to refine subsequent questions (Merriam,
1998). Hence, this approach to gathering and analyzing data was adapted as the study
proceeded and relevant categories emerged. Early analysis of data occurred to inform
theoretical note taking. Theoretical notes assisted the researcher to relate observations to one
another, develop new concepts, and link these new concepts to concepts already in the
teacher leadership literature. Data analysis continued during and after data collection until
the researcher developed some kind of general scheme or pattern for data analysis that
accounted for the entire phenomenon observed.
As mentioned in the data collection section, interviews were fully transcribed by a
third party and then reviewed by the researcher for accuracy. The researcher also took every
opportunity to ensure clarity of all comments during the interview. Rephrasing teachers
comments and asking for their agreement accomplished this clarity.
The researcher examined how teachers responses reflected their own thinking about
aspects of teacher leadership by coding interview transcripts. Beginning with a priori codes
derived from the Theoretical Framework of Teacher Leadership, additional codes emerged as
the researcher studied principal and teacher leader interview responses regarding teacher
leadership roles and functions, as well conditions that support or hinder teacher leaders (see
Appendices L, M, & N). PLC observations were also analyzed following the Observation
Protocol Guide (see Appendix O). The researcher then applied this coding scheme to hand
code passages in the data (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
The ongoing process of coding interview transcripts and observation field notes
informed the data analysis. This required reading and rereading the data to highlight and

63
label salient or descriptive issues that emerged, for later sorting and categorization. The
researcher manually completed the data analysis process.
Throughout the data analysis process, the researcher wrote analytic memos to
generate deeper insights that moved the analysis from the mundane to the creative (Marshall
& Rossman, 2006). Memos were primarily conceptual in intent. As such, they were coded
according to the emerging themes and corresponding concept(s) and were kept separate from
data files. The researcher analyzed these memos to tie together different pieces of data into a
recognizable cluster. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), memos can also go well
beyond codes and their relationship to any aspect of the study- personal, methodological, and
substantive (p. 72).
Given the complexity of teacher leadership, a mixed methods approach best examined
the phenomenon. The researcher used a quantitative survey to identify dimensions that
support teacher leadership and then follow up the quantitative results with an in-depth,
qualitative, case study to explain why the results occurred. By constructing a conceptual
framework for teacher leadership that was grounded in the review of the literature, the
researcher provided a clear trajectory suggesting that teachers who lead may ultimately
influence student learning. According to Yin (2009), the rationale for using a single case
study may be to confirm, challenge or extend a theory, or to represent an extreme or unique
case. This study has potential for providing a significant contribution to the literature by
creating a rich description of teacher leaders experiences as change agents in program
improvement secondary schools.

64
Summary
This explanatory, sequential mixed methods study investigated teacher leadership in
program improvement secondary schools. In the quantitative phase, the Teacher Leadership
School Survey (TLSS) was employed at four program improvement secondary schools. The
results of the survey and student achievement data over a three-year period were used to
identify the case study school. The researcher then used qualitative methodology to
investigate teacher leadership within the case study school, which included a principal
interview, teacher leader interviews, and observations of professional learning community
meetings. Using a mixed methods design, the researcher was able to analyze rich data that
increased the understanding of how administrators and teachers in program improvement
schools perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders. Teacher leaders and the principal
revealed to what degree, and in what ways teachers assume leadership roles. The study also
suggested conditions that supported or inhibited teacher leadership within program
improvement secondary schools.

65
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools that were making steady student achievement gains
following NCLB guidelines. Teacher leadership has been widely studied, mostly in
elementary schools, where active collaboration among teachers occurs on a daily basis. The
research findings and results of this study provided insights into teacher leadership within
secondary schools that are low performing but making measurable improvements in student
learning and teacher practice.
The study addressed the following research questions:
1. How do administrators and teachers in persistently under-performing secondary
schools, labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher
leaders?
2. To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement secondary schools?
3. What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
secondary schools?
Previous research has revealed that, when schools empower teachers to assume
leadership roles, collaborative cultures flourish and teachers lead in consort with the
administration (Crowther et al., 2002; Fullan, 2001; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001).
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) asserted that teachers have potential to be dynamic leaders
in their schools, thereby enhancing the possibility of school reform.

66
To facilitate this investigation, the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS),
developed by Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), was administered to teachers at four program
improvement secondary schools. Schools were studied across seven dimensions of teacher
leadership, including developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality, participation,
open communication, and positive environment. Higher numerical results on the TLSS
indicate a definitive school culture that supports the development of teacher leadership. The
school that manifested the strongest presence of teacher leadership, and was making
significant progress towards exiting program improvement status, was studied in greater
depth using case study methodology. The qualitative phase of the investigation allowed the
researcher to learn how various dimensions of teacher leadership manifest themselves within
the day-to-day work of teachers, particularly within a low-performing school engaged in
efforts to improve results.
Upon reentering the field to commence qualitative data gathering, the researcher first
conducted an in-depth interview with the case study principal. In response to open-ended
interview questions (Appendix H), the principal shared her understanding of teacher leader
roles and functions, identified the specific leadership roles that teachers assumed or were
assigned, and described the conditions that supported or inhibited teacher leadership at her
school. At the time of the study, the school was in Program Improvement Year Five. The
study defined teacher leadership as the ability to collaborate effectively with colleagues for
the purposes of influencing change, increasing teacher expertise, and improving student and
teacher learning. Using this definition, the principal also identified five teacher leaders to
be interviewed.

67
In-depth interviews were conducted with these five teacher leaders (Appendix G).
Teacher leaders shared perspectives about their roles, functions, and specific leadership
activities within which they engaged. They also provided insights into conditions that
supported or inhibited teacher leadership at their school.
From the principal and teacher leader interviews, professional learning communities
(PLCs) emerged as the primary vehicles within which teachers practiced leadership for the
sake of improving their practice and student achievement. Therefore, the researcher
conducted observations of these PLC meetings. PLC observations covered multiple content
areas, including Intermediate Algebra, English 10, and World Languages. Four of the five
teacher leader research participants were observed facilitating PLC meetings. Participation,
collaboration, group dynamics, and topics of discussion were observed and recorded.
Archival evidence, including site plans, PLC agendas, and PLC minutes, were also
analyzed as a means to further triangulate data. The site plans provided student achievement
data. PLC agendas guided the researcher during the observation of the PLC meetings (see
Appendices P & Q). PLC minutes provided a history of the PLC leaders actions.
Data analysis occurred continuously as the researcher attempted to identify emerging
themes, as well as to tease out anomalies and contradictions (Merriam, 1998). Findings were
organized according to the four phases of data collection within a mixed-methods design.
Phase One presents survey results from the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS), as
administered across the four program improvement secondary schools. Phases Two, Three,
and Four report qualitative research findings from the descriptive single case study of a
Program Improvement secondary school, intended to provide insight into the ways teacher

68
leadership was employed as a means to change teaching practices and improve student
performance.
Phase Two describes findings from the in-depth interview with the case study school
principal. Phase Three presents findings from five teacher leader in-depth interviews,
providing deeper insights to the teacher leadership phenomenon at the case study school.
Phase Four describes findings from observations of four professional learning community
(PLC) meetings.
In order to set the research context, profiles of the four sample secondary schools
follow, providing information about student demographics, school programs, and student
achievement using Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators for a three-year period.
These descriptions were culled from each schools Single Plans for Student Achievement
(SPSA). The SPSA outlines multi-year school improvement goals with corresponding
actions and resources. Throughout the presentation of findings, the privacy and
confidentiality of all participants was maintained through the use of pseudonyms.
Sample School Profiles
Prior to engaging in Phase I of the study, the researcher identified a secondary school
district in southern California and selected four schools within which to conduct the survey.
As reported in Chapter 3, the schools are part of a large, Southern California secondary
school district comprised of 14 comprehensive middle and high schools. The total district
enrollment is 42,000. The demographic composition of students in the district is: 0.4 %
American Indian, 2% Asian, 0.8 % Pacific Islander, 9.2% Filipino, 72.9% Hispanic, 4.4%
African American, and 10.1% White. Approximately 26 % of all students in the district are
English learners. By collecting data within one district, the researcher held constant the

69
factors of district-level organization and management. Two high schools and their feeder
middle schools were chosen to comprise the survey sample. All four schools were receiving
Title I funds and were in different years of Program Improvement. The rationale for program
improvement status is addressed within the following profile of each school in the study by
describing the federal Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP). A review of the statewide
Academic Performance Index (API) was also included to demonstrate that all four schools
had made significant achievement gains throughout the three years being investigated in the
study.
Hearst Middle School
Hearst Middle School (HMS) served approximately 1200 students in the seventh and
eighth grades. HMS was a Title 1/State Compensatory Education (SCE) School-wide
Program school. According to the 2008 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
report, 62% of the student population participated in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
Program. Ethnically, the school was 86% Hispanic or Latino. In addition, 38% of the
students were English Language Learners (ELL) and another 24.4% have been reclassified as
Fluent English Proficient (R/FEP). Ten percent of the student population was students with
disabilities.
The school offered programs to meet the needs of its diverse student population
including areas such as gifted and talented education, special education, ELL/ELD (English
Language Learner/English Language Development) and bilingual classes. Support and
enrichment classes included AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination),
vocabulary-building elective, a survey of foreign languages, and performing arts including
band and orchestra.

70
HMS was in the fifth year of program improvement under the guidelines of No Child
Left Behind, having failed to meet the AYP criteria for the language arts tests with English
Learners and Students with Disabilities. The statewide Academic Performance Index (API)
also indicates how well the school performed on content standards tests in language arts,
mathematics, social studies, and science. The purpose of the API is to measure the academic
performance and growth of schools. Based on API data, Hearst Middle School met overall
school-wide API growth targets in 2008 and 2009, and did not meet school-wide growth
targets in 2007. In 2007, sub-group data indicated that HMS did not meet the growth targets
for Latino students and socio-economically disadvantaged students, but had significant
growth with English learners. In 2008, HMS met the API growth targets for Latino students,
students with disabilities, and socio-economically disadvantaged students. However, HMS
did not meet the 2008 API growth target for English learners. In 2009, HMS met growth
targets for Latino students, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students,
but did not meet the target for students with disabilities.
Staff members continued school restructuring efforts through the implementation of
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Lead teachers in each department were trained
in PLC concepts and strategies, and the school schedule was constructed to allow PLC
meeting time nearly every week. In addition, staff members utilized the expertise of the
district Academic Support Team (AST) in the subjects of math, language arts, and science
California standards (Table 1).
Hearst High School
Hearst High School (HHS) had a population of approximately 1,700 students in
grades 9 thru 12 on the main campus and the Learning Center. The Learning Center is an

71
Table 1
Hearst Middle School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary
Met AYP Criteria
2007

2008

2009

AYP Components

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

Participation Rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Percent Proficient

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

API as additional

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

indicator
Graduation Rate

Information compiled from the CDE reports at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/index.asp web page

alternative educational program within the school for students who are deficient in credits
necessary for graduation. The school served a community of predominantly low-to-middle
income families, many of whom live in apartments within walking distance of the campus.
This comprehensive high school served an ethnically diverse population of students:
88% Hispanic, 5% White, 3% African American, 3% Filipino, 1% Asian and 1% other.
Twenty-six percent of the students were eligible for Cal Works, a state funded program for
low-income families, and 58% are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Community
member participation in school governance and other activities occurred via parent
representation on the School Site Council, the PTSA, and volunteer opportunities on campus.

72
Various categorical and general meetings were held for sharing achievement data and
keeping parents/community members informed of all programs available to HHS students.
Hearst High operated on a modified calendar of 180 instructional days that
commenced in September for students and finished in June. This calendar included 66,469
instructional minutes. The modified schedule provided 60 minutes of weekly collaboration
for staff. In addition, 60 minutes of Standard Mastery Intervention, in language arts and
mathematics, was provided for students daily during the school day.
HHS also offered a variety of programs, including the AVID, International
Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement, the School Science Innovation Academy (an approved
California Academy), a Medical Careers Pathway supported by Regional Occupational
Program (ROP) classes, and the Learning Center. In addition, support programs for students
included the schoolwide Title I Program, the English Learner Program, and Special
Education Classes.
A school district partnership with a local university and private enterprise provided
qualified students with guaranteed college admission and scholarship opportunities starting
with the class of 2006. To foster the success of this partnership, HHS significantly increased
the number of sections of lab science and high-level math. In addition, the Gear Up program
was supporting the class of 2011 with the ultimate goal of preparing them for college. The
A-G completion rate increased from 24.7% for class of 2005 to 31.1% for the class of 2008.
The intent of the A-G subject requirements is to ensure that students can participate fully in
the first-year program at University of California in a variety of fields of study.
The statewide Academic Performance Index (API) for Hearst High indicated that the
school did not meet the school-wide growth target in 2007, but did meet the overall growth

73
target in 2008 and 2009. In 2007, subgroup data indicated that all subgroups did not meet the
growth targets. These subgroups included Latinos, socio-economically disadvantaged
students, English learners, and students with disabilities. All four subgroups met their
growth targets in 2008 and 2009.
Having missed the AYP targets for the English learner subgroup (See Table 2),
Hearst High School moved to year 4 program improvement status. Thirty-two percent of the
students were English Language Learners (ELL) and 10% were students with disabilities.
The program improvement year 4 corrective actions for Hearst consisted of restructuring the
internal organization of the school, implementing a block schedule that provided time for
weekly PLC collaboration, and providing daily intervention within the schedule.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) served as the decision-making body regarding,
rigor, pacing, benchmark assessments, researched based instructional strategies, and targeted
interventions for students.
Ocean View Middle School
Ocean View Middle School served 1,083 students in grades 7-8. The school provided
a variety of academic programs that included the core curriculum of courses along with
enrichment opportunities, special education elective courses, an honors program for gifted
and high-achieving students, and a performing arts program. Instructional technology was
used throughout the campus. Student ethnicity was represented by the following percentages:
6% Filipino, 75% Hispanic, 12% White, less than 1% Pacific Islander, less than 1%
American Indian, and less than1% Asian.
Archival documents described a strong sense of community at the school. Dedicated
to the middle school concept, Ocean View Middle provided support for students transitioning

74
Table 2
Hearst High School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary
Met AYP Criteria
2007

2008

2009

AYP Components

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

Participation Rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Percent Proficient

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

API as additional

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

indicator
Graduation Rate

Information compiled from the CDE reports at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/index.asp web page

from elementary to secondary school, and from preteen to adolescence. In addition to campus
clubs, organizations and activities, students took part in an extended-day program that
provided academic tutoring and activities that promoted community team building.
Based on statewide Academic Performance Index (API) data, Ocean View Middle
School met school-wide growth targets in 2007 and 2009, but did not meet growth targets in
2008. The school struggled to meet the growth targets for various subgroups throughout the
three years. The subgroups for Ocean View Middle School included Latinos, Whites, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities.
Twenty-eight percent of the students were English learners and 11% were students with
disabilities. In 2007, Whites and socio-economically disadvantaged students did not meet

75
growth targets while the remaining three subgroups met their targets. In 2008, only socioeconomically disadvantaged students met their growth targets. In 2009, only Latino students
met their growth targets.
In 2008-09, OVM did not meet AYP benchmarks in the English learner and students
with disabilities subgroups (See Table 3) and as such, remained in program improvement
year 5 status. To address this need, OVMs teachers met regularly on minimum days in
Professional Learning Communities in order to rewrite instructional goals to ensure English
learners and students with disabilities attained essential learnings, and administer and analyze
common formative assessments to inform instruction.
Table 3
Ocean View Middle School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary
Met AYP Criteria
2007

2008

2009

AYP Components

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

Participation Rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Percent Proficient

No

No

No

No

No

No

API as additional

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

indicator
Graduation Rate

Information compiled from the CDE reports at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/index.asp web page

76
Ocean View High School
Ocean View High Schools student population was drawn from two different areas in
their county. Student ethnicity is represented by the following percentages: 72% Latino,
17% White, 4% African American, 2% Asian, and 1% Native American.
Students from throughout the 42,000-student district participated in Ocean View High
Schools special programs: a magnet Navy Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
(NJROTC) and a California Specialized Secondary Program (SSP) Poseidon Academy
(Marine Science emphasis). The school also offered a Maritime Services Regional
Occupational Program. In the 2009-2010 school year, 75.6% of Ocean View High Schools
1747 students qualified for free- or reduced-priced lunches. Thirty-four percent of OVHS
students were identified English Learners. Nearly 11% of the students were identified as
students with disabilities and OVHS offered both resource and special day class programs for
students with disabilities. The number of English Learners (ELs) had increased steadily
throughout the five years prior to this study, and the majority of these students had been
residents of the United States for six years or more.
According to statewide API data, OVHS met school-wide growth targets in 2008 and
2009, but did not make growth targets in 2007. The subgroups for Ocean View High School
included Latinos, Whites, socio-economically disadvantaged students, English learners, and
students with disabilities. In 2007, Latino students and students with disabilities did not meet
growth targets. In 2008, only students with disabilities did not meet growth targets. In 2009,
all students met their growth targets.
In 2007, OVHS made AYP federal growth targets overall and in all significant
subgroups except for English Learners in English/Language Arts. Consequently, the school

77
redoubled its efforts to improve service to English Learners, especially those enrolled in
mainstream (English-language instruction) classrooms. In 2008-09, OVM did not meet
AYP criteria in the English Learner subgroup and moved to program improvement year 5
status (See Table 4). In response, English Learners at Ocean View High School were offered
a variety of programs including bilingual and Structured English Immersion (SEI) classes in
English/Language Arts, math, science and social studies. For the third year, OVHS had
placed acquisition of academic language at the forefront of its professional development and
instructional goals.
Table 4
Ocean View High School, 2007-2009 AYP Criteria Summary
Met AYP Criteria
2007

2008

2009

AYP Components

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

Participation Rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Percent Proficient

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

API as additional

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

indicator
Graduation Rate

Information compiled from the CDE reports at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/index.asp web page

78
Quantitative Research Findings
The researcher used Katzenmeyer and Mollers (2001) Teacher Leadership School
Survey (TLSS) to identify the secondary school with the highest degree of support for
teacher leadership. The seven dimensions measured by the TLSS were: (a) developmental
focus; (b) recognition; (c) autonomy; (d) collegiality; (e) participation; (f) open
communication; and (g) positive environment.
Phase I: Survey Results
With the permission of the principal, the researcher administered the surveys during a
regularly scheduled faculty meeting at each of the four identified program improvement
secondary schools. The researcher explained the general purpose of the study, assured the
confidentiality of all responses, and asked teachers to complete the questionnaires. Because
the unit of analysis was the school, teacher responses were aggregated to the school level. No
attempt was made to gather data from faculty who were not present at the meeting, but
virtually all teachers in attendance returned usable questionnaires. The number of
respondents at each school ranged from 35 to 57, with an average of 45. The total number of
teachers who responded to the surveys was 180.
Survey Participant Demographics
Education Level
As shown on Table 5, of the 151 participants who chose to answer the education
question, two-thirds (67%) held a Masters Degree and one-third (33%) held a baccalaureate
degree. One participant (from Ocean View High) earned a PhD. Table 5 shows that Hearst
High had the lowest rate of participants reporting Masters degree (53%), while Ocean View
High had the highest rate of holding a masters degree (75%) and the only Ph.D. in the study.

79
Table 5
Education Level of Participants
Degree

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

BA

15

14

11

49

47%

34%

23%

30%

33%

17

27

36

21

101

53%

66%

75%

70%

67%

2%

1%

32

41

48

30

151

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

MA

PhD

Total

Note: HH = Hearst High, HM = Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

Credentials
The majority of participants held a single-subject credential (58%), and 8% held a
credential in Special Education. Participant credentials by school are shown in Table 6.
Teaching Experience
The descriptives for the participants years of teaching are provided in Table 7.
Participants years of teaching experience were well distributed. Approximately half (49%)
of the participants had between 6 and 15 years of teaching experience. Roughly equivalent
proportions of participants had 20+ years of teaching experience (14%) and less than 5 years
teaching experience (18%). Teacher leaders were generally experienced, with 82% having
more than 5 years experience.

80
Table 6
Participant Credentials
Credential

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

24

27

33

20

104

60%

56%

58%

57%

58%

2%

9%

6%

4%

2%

1%

AB

AC

AD

AE

BDE

DE

8%

5%

3%

3%

4%

3%

2%

10

13%

4%

9%

6%

2%

1%

3%

2%

3%

2%

14

5%

6%

7%

14%

8%

(continued)

81
Table 6 (continued)

No Answer

Total

3%

2%

4%

2%

12

8%

8%

4%

9%

7%

13

13%

12%

7%

40

48

57

35

180

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note: A= Single Subject, B= Administrative, C = Pupil Personnel, D = Special Education, E = Other. HH =

Hearst High, HM = Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

Table 7
Participant Years Teaching
Years

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

1-5y

10

12

33

25%

25%

14%

9%

18%

14

13

11

47

35%

19%

23%

31%

26%

10

13

10

41

25%

17%

23%

29%

23%

20

8%

17%

14%

3%

11%

26

6-10y

11-15y

16-20y

20+y

(continued)

82
Table 7 (continued)

No Answer

Total

8%

13%

14%

26%

14%

13

0%

10%

12%

3%

7%

40

48

57

35

180

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note: HH = Hearst High, HM = Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

Participant Years at Current School

Overall, roughly two-thirds of participants (64%) were at their current school for less
than 10 years, while 6% were at their current school for over 20 years. Table 8 shows that
Hearst High had the highest proportion of participants reporting 1-5 years at their current
school (45%), while OVH (25%) and OVM (26%) had the lowest proportion reporting 1-5
years at their current school. OVH and OVM participants had somewhat more experience at
their present school overall.
Participant Roles
Participant roles varied greatly. For participants who only listed one role, the most
common roles were Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader (11%). Faculty
Advisory Committee Member (11%), and Department Chairperson (9%). School Site
Council Member (6%) and Academic Coach (2%) were less common roles among
participants who only listed one role.
The majority of participants (61%) listed more than one role. Across all participants,
the most common roles were Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader (32%),
Department Chairperson (29%), and Faculty Advisory Committee Member (28%). School
Site Council Member (14%) and Academic Coach (6%) were less common roles. Table 9

83
displays participant roles by School. Table 10 provides the frequencies and percentages for
each role and combination of roles.
Table 8
Participant Years at Current School
Years

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

1-5y

18

19

14

60

45%

40%

25%

26%

33%

12

21

13

55

30%

19%

37%

37%

31%

30

23%

13%

16%

17%

17%

12

15%

5%

6%

7%

6-10y

11-15y

16-20y

20+y

No Answer

Total

10

3%

4%

5%

11%

6%

13

10%

12%

3%

7%

40

48

57

35

180

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note: HH = Hearst High, HM = Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

84
Table 9
Participant Roles
Role

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

A Only

19

5%

8%

16%

11%

11%

17

19

16

58

15%

35%

33%

46%

32%

16

15%

6%

7%

9%

9%

15

14

14

52

23%

31%

25%

40%

29%

20

23%

6%

4%

17%

11%

14

10

18

51

35%

21%

16%

51%

28%

10

8%

2%

7%

6%

6%

26

10%

15%

16%

17%

14%

0%

2%

2%

3%

2%

11

Total A

B Only

Total B

C Only

Total C

D Only

Total D

E Only

Total E

(continued)

85
Table 9 (continued)

No Answer

Total

5%

6%

7%

6%

6%

14

20

24

64

35%

42%

42%

17%

36%

40

48

57

35

180

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note: A = Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader, B = Department Chairperson, C = Faculty

Advisory Committee Member, D = School Site Council Member, E= Academic Coach. HH = Hearst High, HM
= Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

Table 10
Participant Roles and Role Combinations
Role

Stat

HH

HM

OVH

OVM

Total

19

5%

8%

16%

11%

11%

3%

10%

4%

4%

11

6%

4%

17%

6%

2%

9%

2%

AB

ABC

ABCD

ABCE

ABD

ABDE

3%

1%

2%

1%

(continued)

86
Table 10 (continued)

ABE

AC

ACDE

ACE

AD

BC

BCD

BCDE

BD

BDE

2%

1%

2%

3%

1%

3%

4%

2%

6%

3%

2%

1%

3%

1%

2%

4%

2%

16

15%

6%

7%

9%

9%

3%

4%

2%

2%

3%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

20

23%

6%

4%

17%

11%

(continued)

87
Table 10 (continued)
CD

No Answer

Total

3%

1%

10

8%

2%

7%

6%

6%

2%

2%

3%

2%

14

20

24

64

35%

42%

42%

17%

36%

40

48

57

35

180

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note: A = Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader, B = Department Chairperson, C = Faculty

Advisory Committee Member, D = School Site Council Member, E= Academic Coach. HH = Hearst High, HM
= Hearst Middle, OVH = Ocean View High, OVM = Ocean View Middle.

Participant Roles
Participant roles varied greatly. For participants who only listed one role, the most
common roles were Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader (11%). Faculty
Advisory Committee Member (11%), and Department Chairperson (9%). School Site
Council Member (6%) and Academic Coach (2%) were less common roles among
participants who only listed one role.
The majority of participants (61%) listed more than one role. Across all participants,
the most common roles were Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader (32%),
Department Chairperson (29%), and Faculty Advisory Committee Member (28%). School
Site Council Member (14%) and Academic Coach (6%) were less common roles. Table 9
displays participant roles by School. Table 10 provides the frequencies and percentages for
each role and combination of roles.

88
Leadership
Leadership Dimensions across Schools
TLSS Leadership dimensions for the full sample of 180 teachers from four program
improvement secondary schools who completed the survey are presented in Table 11. The
total TLSS Leadership across dimensions averaged 3.22 (SD = .66) on a five-point scale.
Leadership domain mean scores ranged from 2.63 for Participation (SD = .86) to 3.60 for
Developmental Focus (SD = .70) (Table 11).
Table 11
Descriptives: Leadership Dimensions across Schools
Dimensions

Mean

SD

Min

Max

SEM

Participation

2.63

180

0.86

0.06

Communication

3.02

180

0.76

0.06

Positive Work Environment

3.17

178

0.81

0.06

Autonomous

3.25

180

0.72

0.05

Collegiality

3.40

180

0.72

0.05

Recognition

3.45

180

0.73

0.05

Developmental Focus

3.60

180

0.70

0.05

Total

3.22

180

0.66

4.96

0.05

Figure 2 displays the TLSS Leadership dimensions for the entire sample. Bar heights
represent mean values per TLSS Leadership dimension. Error bars indicate the standard
error of the mean (SEM) as a visual representation of the relative variability within and
between dimensions. Figure 2 is arranged from left to right, so that the rightmost dimensions

89
are higher in TLSS Leadership. Participants averaged highest in developmental focus, the
practice of coaching teachers toward effective leadership practices and instructional
strategies. Participation in decision-making matters was the lowest rated leadership
dimension.

LeadershipDimensionsacrossSchools
5

TLSSLeadership

1
Participation

Communication

PositiveWork
Environment

Autonomy

Collegiality

Recognition

Developmental
Focus

Figure 2. Leadership across schools. Bar heights indicate mean values. Error bars indicate
standard error of the mean (SEM).
Overall Leadership among Schools
LSS Leadership descriptives for four program improvement secondary schools are
presented in Table 12, including the mean, sample size (N), standard deviation (SD),
Minimum score (Min), Maximum (Max), and the standard error of the mean (SEM).
Leadership ranged from 3.49 (SD = .61) for OVH to 2.95 (SD = .65) for HMS (Table 12).

90
Table 12
Descriptives: Overall Leadership among Schools
School

Mean

SD

Min

Max

SEM

HHS

3.30

40

0.50

2.3

4.29

0.08

HMS

2.95

48

0.65

1.66

4.28

0.09

OVH

3.49

57

0.61

1.65

4.96

0.08

OVM

3.04

35

0.72

4.61

0.12

Visual inspection of Figure 3 reveals that Ocean View High School scored higher in
leadership than HM, OVM, or HH. ANOVA was conducted, with the schools serving as the
independent variable and with TLSS Leadership serving as the dependent variable. Schools
differed significantly in TLSS Leadership by ANOVA, F (3,176) = 7.7, p < .0001. This small
p-value indicates that the differences among schools in Overall Leadership would occur less
than once in 10,000 opportunities if only random chance was operating, which suggests that
these differences were not likely due to chance alone. To localize significant differences in
Overall Leadership between schools, pairwise comparisons were conducted. Pairwise
comparisons revealed that OVH was significantly higher in Overall Leadership than HM (p <
.0001) and OVM (p < .001), and marginally higher than HH (p = .15). These overall findings
support Ocean View High School as demonstrating the highest TLSS Leadership among
schools.

91

OverallLeadershipamongSchools
5

TLSSLeadership

1
HearstMiddle

OceanViewMiddle

HearstHigh

OceanViewHigh

Figure 3. Overall Leadership among Schools. Bar heights indicate mean values.
While Ocean View High School was significantly higher than Hearst Middle School,
the marginal advantage of Ocean View High School over Ocean View Middle School and
Hearst High School suggested the possibility that Ocean View High School might be highest
in teacher leadership. However, this analysis was insensitive to differences among the seven
leadership dimensions.
Leadership Dimensions among Schools
To determine whether OVH was higher than other schools across TLSS Leadership
dimensions, MANOVA was conducted, with TLSS Leadership domain scores serving as the
dependent variable and with schools serving as the independent variable. MANOVA
revealed that schools differed significantly across the seven dimensions of TLSS Leadership,
F (6,169) = 68.4, p < .00001. This small p-value indicates that the differences among schools
in Leadership Dimension would occur less than once in 100,000 opportunities if only random
chance was operating, which suggests that these differences among schools in Leadership

92
Dimensions were not likely due to chance. Pairwise comparisons were not necessary to
localize effects because visual inspection of Figure 4 demonstrates that Ocean View High
scored highest in each of seven TLSS dimensions. Towards determining school selection
based on Teacher Leadership, Ocean View High was highest in Overall Leadership and
highest in each of the seven TLSS Leadership Dimensions. TLSS Leadership Dimension
descriptives by school are presented in Table 13.

LeadershipDimensionsamongSchools
5

TLSSLeadership

3
OceanViewHigh
OceanViewMiddle

HearstHigh
HearstMiddle

1
Participation

Communication

PositiveWork
Environment

Autonomy

Collegiality

Recognition

Developmental
Focus

Figure 4. Leadership dimensions among schools.

Figure 5 displays TLSS Leadership dimensions for Ocean View High. Note that
Collegiality, Recognition, and Developmental Focus were the highest dimensions of TLSS
Leadership. Participation was the only TLSS Leadership dimension that averaged below a
3, indicating that the remaining TLSS Leadership dimensions averaged between
sometimes and often.

93
Table 13
Descriptives: Leadership Dimensions Among Schools
School

Dimension

Mean

SD

Min

Max

SEM

HHS

Participation
Communication
Positive Work
Environment
Autonomous
Collegiality
Recognition
Developmental Focus

2.82
3.01

40
40

0.71
0.67

1.29
1.43

4.71
4.14

0.11
0.11

3.45
3.31
3.32
3.49
3.72

39
40
40
40
40

0.65
0.50
0.56
0.58
0.58

1.57
2.29
1.71
2
2.71

4.57
4.14
4.71
5
5

0.10
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09

2.08
2.77

48
48

0.84
0.74

1
1.67

4
4.43

0.12
0.11

2.75
3.02
3.33
3.27
3.46

48
48
48
48
48

0.80
0.74
0.66
0.72
0.72

1
1.14
2
1.8
2

4.43
4.71
4.71
4.86
5

0.12
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10

2.93
3.39

57
57

0.79
0.72

1.14
1.71

5
5

0.10
0.09

3.48
3.39
3.75
3.67
3.83

56
57
57
57
57

0.68
0.74
0.73
0.70
0.61

2
1
1.33
2
1.8

5
5
5
5
5

0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08

2.70
2.79

35
35

0.81
0.72

1
1

4.43
4.29

0.14
0.12

2.96
3.27
3.02
3.28
3.25

35
35
35
35
35

0.87
0.81
0.72
0.85
0.79

1
1
1
1
1

4.86
4.86
4.29
5
5

0.15
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.13

HMS

OVH

OVM

Participation
Communication
Positive Work
Environment
Autonomous
Collegiality
Recognition
Developmental Focus
Participation
Communication
Positive Work
Environment
Autonomous
Collegiality
Recognition
Developmental Focus
Participation
Communication
Positive Work
Environment
Autonomous
Collegiality
Recognition
Developmental Focus

94

LeadershipDimensions:OceanViewHigh
5

TLSSLeadership

1
Participation

Communication

PositiveWork
Environment

Autonomy

Collegiality

Recognition

Developmental
Focus

Figure 5. Leadership dimensions: Ocean View High. Bar heights indicate mean values. Error
bars indicate standard error of the mean (SEM).
Summary of Quantitative Research Findings
The purpose of the quantitative phase of data collection and analysis was to determine
which of the sample schools had the highest degree of support for teacher leadership. The
prevalence of supportive practices provided substantial opportunity to learn about the various
leadership roles teachers assume within program improvement secondary schools, as well as
what conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within a highly challenged school
environment.
Ocean View High School scored highest in overall leadership and scored highest in
each of the seven TLSS dimensions. As noted in the sample school descriptions, both HHS
and OVHS met AYP in one of the three years of the investigation, as compared with their
feeder middle schools, by meeting AYP targets in math each year for the three-year period

95
and in both math and English Language Arts for one of three years. Ocean View High School
also reported substantive plans for redoubling efforts to improve English Language Arts
instruction, especially for English Learners. According to statewide API data, all four
schools made achievement gains throughout the three years being investigated. However,
Ocean View High School also had the highest level of teacher leadership as measured by the
Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS).
Findings from an in-depth case study of teacher leadership at OVHS follow. Here,
the researcher explored the various dimensions of teacher leadership by means of individual
interviews with the principal and five teacher leaders. In addition, observations of
professional learning community meetings were conducted to study the teacher leaders in
action. Related archival documents also provided additional opportunities to triangulate
findings.
Qualitative Research Findings
The research findings are organized by key topics addressed by participants in
response to interview questions aligned with the primary research questions, presented above
and in Chapter 3. The researcher triangulated the data gathered from the principal interview,
five teacher leader interviews, and four professional learning community observations to
converge the lines of inquiry (Yin, 2009, p. 115), studying the responses to the specific
interview questions to determine patterns, themes, and insights in response to each of the
research questions. The principal and teacher leader responses were grouped together after
each question and coded by themes that emerged throughout the study.
Across these various topics addressed, participants ideas and experiences reflected
the seven dimensions of teacher leadership, as measured by the TLSS, in varying degrees. In

96
some cases teacher leader perspectives diverged from those of their principal. In other cases,
there was strong agreement across research participant groups. PLC observations revealed
additional nuances about the nature, context, and content of teacher leadership at Ocean
View High School as experienced by the five teacher leader research participants and their
teacher and administrator colleagues. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) asserted, The qualitative
researcher is interested in diversity of perception, even the multiple realities within which
people live. Triangulation helps to identify different realities (p. 133). The presentation of
findings now turns to data gleaned from the principal interview.
Phase II: Principal Interview
The principal interview was conducted to address the research questions from the
principals perspective and to select the five teacher leaders for in-depth interviews. The
principal was in her first year at the school site but had 14 years of principal experience in
other school districts. Ms. Cranleys predecessor had been at the school site for 11 years prior
to her recent retirement.
How do administrators in persistently under-performing secondary schools, labeled as
program improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders?
For purposes of this research, a teacher leader was defined as a teacher who has the
ability to effectively collaborate with colleagues for the purposes of influencing change,
increasing teacher expertise, and improving students and teacher learning. The principal
used this definition to identify five teacher leaders for the third phase of the study. She
clearly stated, These teachers lead from within the classroom and extend it. Therefore, all
five teachers, who she identified, had a full-time teaching assignment in addition to their
leadership responsibilities. Participants noted this was a shift from the practice of the former

97
principal, who appointed teacher leaders who assumed their roles in lieu of classroom
assignments. Four of the five teacher leaders identified by the principal had been leaders in
the past. The teacher leaders included the following five Ocean View faculty members:
Ms. Smith was a third-year teacher in the math department. She had also completed
her one semester of student teaching at Ocean View High School. Ms. Smith possessed a
bachelors degree in mathematics and had completed additional units in her content area.
Her leadership responsibilities included leading the Intermediate Algebra PLC, teaching
credit recovery for struggling students, and, in the past, advising the hip-hop student dance
group. Prior to teaching, Ms. Smith had worked with a Childrens Theater Performance
Group as a choreographer and dancer.
Mr. Davis was an experienced, 24-year veteran teacher who taught higher-level math
courses. He held a bachelors degree in mathematics. All of his teaching experience had been
at Ocean View High School. He coordinated the after school and Saturday math-tutoring
program since their inception with no compensation. His formal leadership roles included
professional learning community leader and academic coach. Prior to teaching, Mr. Davis
worked as a geophysicist.
Mr. Garcia was in his fourth year working as an art teacher at Ocean View High
School. As noted by the principal, he works very well with students. He is a student
advocate who demonstrates high student engagement throughout his classes. Mr. Garcia
possessed a masters degree in art. Mr. Garcia organized school-wide art projects that helped
to unify the student body. He also served as the district lead teacher for the arts. Prior to
teaching, Mr. Garcia worked as a self-defense instructor.

98
Ms. Thomas was a tenured teacher who served as the social science department
chairperson. She had worked at Ocean View High School for 10 years. She held a masters
degree in social science and was a National Board Certified teacher. In 2008-09, Ms.
Thomas was chosen as a District Teacher of the Year. In addition to her formal role as the
social science department chairperson, Ms. Thomas served as a professional learning
community leader. Along with being a highly regarded and competent teacher, Ms. Thomas
was described by the principal as a superb negotiator when conducting difficult
conversations with students and staff. Prior to teaching, Ms. Thomas worked in the
insurance industry.
Ms. House was an experienced, 28-year veteran teacher who taught Advanced
Placement Spanish courses at Ocean View High. Her formal leadership roles included the
World Languages department chairperson, a member of the Faculty Advisory Committee
(the site governance team), a professional learning community leader, a member of the
School Site Council, and an Accreditation Team Leader. The principal described Ms. House
as a strong teacher with unbelievably positive interactions, who holds students, teachers,
and administrators to task on their commitments.
Four of the five teacher leaders were active leaders in their professional learning
communities (PLCs). Mr. Garcia did not lead a PLC because he taught elective courses.
However, he coordinated incentive programs for the site and organized district/site projects.
All five teacher leaders demonstrated the ability to connect with students and staff.
According to the principal, All of these people take the classroom and extend it. They
connect with kids outside of classroom time. As teacher leaders, each one of the people I
identified takes their content area a step further.

99
The principal identified professional learning communities (PLCs) as a major vehicle
for teacher leadership activities. She acknowledged that the structures for the PLCs had been
established prior to her arrival. She affirmed that there are teacher leaders on all the PLCs;
some are smaller groups than others, like the math and language arts groups are larger.
Ms. Cranley also described instances when she purposefully delegated responsibility
to teacher leaders in efforts to distribute leadership across the faculty. For example, she
invited a group of teacher leaders to attend a workshop on creating a change culture. The
teacher leaders attended the session to receive a message that would then be conveyed by
them to the staff at-large. Ms. Cranley underscored her desire to create critical capacity in
changing the school culture. In this way, her actions, and subsequent teacher leader actions,
aligned with third wave thought in the teacher leadership literature (Silva et al., 2000).
Teacher leaders functioned as active agents in re-culturing a program improvement school.
Principal Cranley further attested to third wave thinking:
Right now, I am new and I think there are some shifts in how we interact and
collaborate with each other. We are trying to change ways of thinking and behaving.
Its about changing our environment, or really, our culture. There may be teachers
that were not identified as teacher leaders before but who are now identified as
leaders.
Principal Cranley saw her role in establishing this participative culture in the
following manner:
I need to provide additional opportunities for teachers to have a voice- all teachers. In
the past, teachers have not been very involved in decision-making at this site, which
is the piece I am trying to change. In the future, I hope to elevate the participation and

100
leadership of teachers, to help me also elevate the participation of parents in the
education of their kids. Id like to start a group of parent volunteers that come during
school day who are primarily Spanish speaking. We have a significant Latino
population but the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) does not reflect that. The longrange goal is to increase everyones involvement in our school to reflect our diverse
population.
The principal understood her role in establishing a collaborative culture with the
stakeholders of Ocean View High School. It would require active participation from the
entire learning community to advance the school and improve student achievement.
To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement secondary schools?
Using a clear process of distributing leadership throughout the school, Principal
Cranley opened the opportunities for teachers to become leaders. She took responsibility for
publicizing leadership positions and encouraged all teachers to assume leadership roles.
Teachers were empowered to participate and lead professional learning communities where
instructional decisions were made.
By way of example, Principal Cranley demonstrated her desire to extend leadership
positions to classroom teachers in a fashion that would keep political pieces aside. The
credit recovery program at Ocean View High School was originally controlled by the
resource teachers funded by the Categorical Office, which coordinates Title I monies, state
funds, and other grants. After a semester, the principal decided to advertise the teacher
positions for the credit recovery program. Interested classroom teachers were invited to
apply and three acquired positions in the credit recovery program. Even though the principal

101
experienced a huge backlash from a [particular] group of teachers, other teachers
appreciated her transparency.
Cranley developed a transparent process that allowed teachers to apply or volunteer
for leadership roles. At times, she would encourage teachers to assume leadership roles as
she conducted classroom observations. Throughout her daily observations, the principal saw
teachers who supported learning, supported kids, and supported collaboration. She made a
concerted effort to expand the scope of influence by including teachers who were leading
from within the classroom. In her role as the instructional leader, Cranley perceived herself
as opening the gates for more teachers to assume leadership responsibilities and widening
the leadership capacity of the school. She felt this action was paramount to attaining the
schools vision of becoming higher performing. Principal Cranley assumed primary
responsibility for strategic leadership, such as aligning resources and networking, and offered
teachers the responsibility for instructional leadership focused on teaching practice (Crowther
et al., 2002).
The principal identified PLCs as primary opportunities for teachers to assume
leadership roles. She stated, We have high-quality PLCs here as seen by the quality work
that goes on. This PLC development was strongly supported by the district office.
Cranley further empowered teacher leaders to share the decision-making authority
among the PLC group members, encouraging them to mentor others to become leaders, as
well. As PLC leaders and members, teachers discussed the modification of lessons, changes
in instructional approaches, and addressed school-wide instructional issues such as literacy.
What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
secondary schools?

102
The literature is clear that principals play a vital role in the development and support
of teacher leadership (Barth, 2001; Childs-Bowen et al., 2000; Smylie, 1992). The principal
spoke candidly about both the support for, and the barriers to, developing teacher leaders at
her school.
Supports to Teacher Leadership within Ocean View High School
Ms. Cranley identified three primary sources of support for teacher leaders at Ocean
View, including collaboration, administrative support, and dedicated time.
Collaboration. Collaboration was cited by the principal as an essential quality in
promoting teacher leadership at her school. She stated, We need to bring teachers together
to try new ways of improving their teaching and student learning. Effective collaboration
develops trust among teachers and importantly, develops trust among teachers and
administrators. Slater (2008) underscored the importance of establishing collaborative
relationships as essential to building leadership capacity in schools.
Although Principal Cranley understood that her own collaborative leadership style
was a necessary condition for school improvement, she, more importantly, recognized that
teacher leaders, who formally or informally took initiative and used their creativity to
enhance student learning, complemented her leadership. She asserted:
Teacher leaders are actively involved in and out of the classroom. They are all very
skilled and competent teachers who sometimes deal with very difficult situations as they try
to implement new ideas in and out of their PLCs. They all really work to get the kids levels
up.
Principal Cranley was emphatic about the roles of teacher leaders in their professional
development communities. She stated, A major role of PLC leaders is working

103
collaboratively with peers and administrators to sustain a student achievement focus, creating
common formative assessments, developing common lesson plans, and working through
content-specific issues. The principal maintained that PLCs provided context for the
teacher collaboration needed to lift the Ocean View out of Program Improvement status.
Teacher leaders effectively collaborated in PLCs to review performance data and create
common formative assessments. Professional learning communities were primary vehicles
for teachers to work as teams and discuss necessary instructional changes. As Principal
Cranley stated, Some of the roles performed by PLC leaders impact teacher practice which
affects the quality of classroom instruction. This has a positive effect on the learning of
kids.
Administrative support. Ms. Cranley saw herself supporting teacher leaders from
the classroom out. First, she worked to positively influence their decisions to become leaders
in the first place, making sure that she provided ample encouragement for the classroom
teacher [to be] a voice in leadership. Cranley saw herself as playing a primary role in the
development of leaders, admittedly providing guidance and coaching to teacher leaders as
they carried out ideas that positively impacted students in a low-performing school.
The principal then saw her role as extending to facilitation of the right work across
the PLCs and teacher leaders within them. By reviewing the program improvement action
plan, the principal could surmise if teachers were maintaining the right focus, concentrating
on students who were not progressing academically. According to Principal Cranley, the
school needs to address the needs of English learners if we are to meet Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP).

104
The literature highlighted the importance of administrative support to effectively
address the school improvement process of any school (Birky, 2002; Pankake & Moller,
2007; Shelton et al., 2008). The districts support of teachers new learning was essential to
their development as leaders. Along with PLC workshops, the district provided trainings on
specialized programs such as Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) and
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID). Both of these trainings provided
instructional strategies that targeted the learning of students who were struggling at Ocean
View High School.
Dedicated meeting times. In making their case for effective professional learning
communities, DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) emphasized the need for dedicated meeting
time. Through PLC meeting times, teachers at Ocean View High School were able to meet
and safely talk about their teaching challenges. Principal Cranley referred to a perpetuated
myth that this was the most crime ridden campus on earth. Cranley acknowledged the
challenges teachers faced day to day, but worked to dispel this myth, lifting up examples of
how this is a great campus with great kids. She saw the dedicated meeting times as an
opportunity to shift the school-wide conversation. According to Principal Cranley:
At times, student achievement has not been a key focus. We spend a lot of time
talking, sometimes about other issues, like construction or crime. I want to spend the
time in PLCs talking about specific student data, but [also] spend some time once a
month to look at school-wide data, processes, and issues, and establish structures that
support high quality work as a [school-wide] team with an instructional focus.
Principal Cranley worked with teacher leaders within the PLCs to focus and organize
their discussions around student achievement data and teaching practice. The principal also

105
used PLC time to investigate school-wide issues about instruction, which could help to
inform future professional development activities for the entire staff. The principal worked
to maintained a laser-like focus on instruction to dispel the perceived myths of the school.
Obstacles to Teachers Leadership within Ocean View High School
Despite progress, Ms. Cranley noted two significant obstacles that continued to
inhibit teacher leadership in her school. A general absence of trust between and among
teachers, combined with the persistence of deficit thinking among some teachers, constrained
her ability to realize the full potential of teacher leadership at Ocean View High.
Lack of trust. The first obstacle was a lack of trust among all teachers, creating an
environment where peer observations could not occur. Principal Cranley believed that the
process of conducting peer observations across all content areas would create a culture of
continuous improvement led by teachers, teachers providing immediate feedback to
teachers.
Principal Cranley advised teacher leaders to maintain open lines of communicate with
their peers to avoid incorrect perceptions about their motives. Ms Cranley encouraged her
teacher leaders to keep kids first in their work. She elaborated:
These teacher leaders at this school are all student-oriented. If were always talking
about students, their progress and wellbeing, then we dont have to worry about
teachers who perceive teacher leaders as wannabe administrators who talk to
administrators about them. Instead, we need to be transparent about our intentions.
We must demonstrate a united front that we are all in it together.
As a new principal to the site, she felt it would take time to establish a culture where
teachers would be safe and comfortable receiving immediate, direct feedback about their

106
instructional practices. Cranley understood the importance of open honest communication in
engendering this requisite trust between she and her faculty, and between and among the
teachers themselves.
Deficit belief system. The principal observed that not all teachers believed their
students could achieve at high levels, nor did all teachers believe they could help their
students attain higher learning. She felt that teacher leaders and most teachers believed in
their students capacity to learn and perform at high levels, but that this belief was not shared
universally. She stated, I dont think they all believe this and its a major area of growth.
She further contended that everyone on staff needed to believe that all students could learn
at high levels if we were going to get out of program improvement.
As an experienced principal in a new district, the principal attested to embracing
collaboration, distributed leadership, and professional communities as a means of affecting
change and student progress at the school. She described the ways she empowered teachers
to lead from the classroom out to change the culture of the school and develop leadership
capacity. The principal cited opportunities when teacher leaders participated in districtinitiated professional development, and, in turn, delivered similar professional development
activities to their peers. Ms. Cranley maintained that faculty members appreciated her
transparency in widening the scope of influence for strong teacher leaders. Structured PLC
time, combined with ongoing principal support, appeared to advance teacher leadership in
this school in year 5 of program improvement status. However, the principal saw an absence
of trust among all teachers as inhibiting the initiation of peer observations, and thus an
obstacle to further teacher leader development. The principal stated that more time was
needed to develop a culture of mutual trust where teachers would feel safe and comfortable

107
observing one another. Another obstacle was a prevailing belief among some teachers that
not all students could achieve at high levels. According to the principal, this belief would
hinder actions that could help the school eradicate the program improvement label.
The next section reports findings from individual interviews with five teacher leaders
at Ocean View High School. Through these interviews, the researcher explored various
leadership roles at the school as described by faculty members who assumed these roles. The
researcher also scrutinized the teachers views about the adequacy of support afforded them
as leaders, as well as the barriers that diminished their capacity to lead in meaningful ways.
Phase III: Teacher Leader Interviews
Each teacher leader was invited to participate in a one-hour interview. These
interviews provided more in-depth information about the roles, functions, and leadership
activities of teacher leaders in a program improvement high school. Teacher leaders also
identified supports for, and barriers to, the development of effective teacher leadership.
How do teachers in persistently under-performing secondary schools, labeled as program
improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders?
Teacher leaders are both teachers and leaders. Teacher leadership is practiced through
a variety of formal and informal positions, roles, and channels of communication in the daily
work of schools (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). The teacher leaders interviewed at Ocean View
High School ranged in their years of teaching experience from three to 28 years, but they
were all known to be excellent teachers who were respected by their peers. From their
classroom experiences, these teachers brought strong pedagogy and interpersonal skills to
their leadership positions. When asked to describe the roles and functions of teacher leaders

108
more generally, the five teacher leaders interviewed identified the following leadership roles:
professional learning community leaders, mentors, and supporters of student learning.
Professional Learning Community Leaders
Three teacher leaders highlighted leadership roles within a professional learning
community (PLC) as a priority. Ms. House maintained that PLC leaders function as a liaison
between [the] respective department, the site administration, and the district. Ms. House
described the PLC leaders as a team facilitator that uses data, such as survey and test results,
looks at D and F grades and dropout rates, [and considers] curriculum trends, best practices
that can enhance our teaching performance in the classroom and improve student
achievement, at least in our department. Ms. House also saw the PLC leader role as a way
to impact other teachers and widen [ones] scope of influence.
Ms. Smith reinforced Ms Houses use of data by describing her PLC role as
coordinating weekly meetings, determining the agenda, and facilitating data conversations
as well as best ways to engage students, especially our English learners. As a PLC leader,
Ms. Smith was able to influence the type of conversations held during their collaboration
times. She voiced a need to be prepared for PLC meetings and protect this sacred time.
As an experienced teacher who was perceived as leader by his peers, Mr. Davis
acknowledged his influence on the members of his PLC team. He admitted:
I have a lot of influence in my PLC. People ask me for my opinion on almost every
single issue. I think they know Ive been around for a long time and have been involved in
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (CIA) meetings in our district and I go to leadership
workshops on my own time.

109
Mr. Davis also took initiative in reading math journals and creating strategies that
promoted his own practice and the pedagogy of his peers. His past involvement in the
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) proved valuable as he worked in his
professional learning community (PLC) and modeled lessons for less experienced teachers.
Mr. Davis served as resource for other members of the math department and his content area
PLC, providing math resources that extended his colleagues knowledge and skills.
Mentors
Mentoring colleagues was an additional role identified by three teacher leaders. Ms.
Smith, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Thomas saw the mentoring role as a co-teacher who
demonstrated best practices or modeled lessons within the classroom. Ms. House
described a mentor as an individual who listens to her colleagues and understands how they
are affected by different issues within and outside of the classroom as teachers.
Ms. Thomas, a National Board Certified teacher, incorporated new strategies,
videotaped lessons, and shared her instructional ideas with colleagues. She felt compelled to
provide professional development activities since the school was in program improvement
status. Ms. Thomas believed that it was her job to ensure a collegial environment was
established at all times. Her careful approach to working with teachers was essential to her
success. She said:
I must be diplomatic when making suggestions to my peers. Some may be defensive
at first. As time goes on, we develop a good rapport and then they begin to trust me,
which then makes it easier to impact their classroom practices. Oftentimes, I find
myself being a cheerleader when we are trying to establish new policies, such as
grading policies and homework policies- all of which impact our teaching.

110
Ms. Thomas understood the importance of being intentional in the delivery of instruction and
assessment measures so that students could improve their learning.
Supporters of Student Learning
Three teacher leaders also saw support of students and their learning as primary
among a teacher leaders roles. Mr. Garcia believed he was identified as a teacher leader by
the principal because of his strong connection with students and his ability to positively
influence and support them as a role model. Mr. Davis talked about dedicating his personal
time to provide math tutoring after school and on Saturdays. Mr. Davis believed that
teachers must get outside of the traditional teaching program of the past, the so-called sage
on stage, and guide by the side [to] help students on an individual basis.
Ms. House paid particular attention to the students who were struggling in her classes
and checked with their core teachers to see how they were doing. She took every
opportunity to communicate with these teachers and spoke to the students themselves to
motivate them or check if anything was wrong. Ms. House acknowledged that outside
forces could be impeding some students from learning. She further understood that good
teaching practice included caring for students outside of the classroom.
Administrators, in particular an assistant principal and the former principal,
encouraged and motivated teacher leaders to make changes to the curriculum or to
instructional strategies they were using in their classrooms. Ms. House stated,
The assistant principal who is the heart and soul of the school allows us to take
risks with innovations and supports us by allowing us to attend meaningful
professional development. Ultimately, my students benefit from [my efforts to]
applying my learning.

111
Mr. Garcia collaborated with students to guide his instruction explaining, I always
go and talk to my students about what they like or dont like about my classes or any
classes. I have found them to be honest and dont hesitate to share their opinions.
In all cases, Ocean Views teacher leaders talked about keeping their teaching
practice at the center of their leadership practice.
To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement secondary schools?
Teachers were usually influenced by their peers to assume leadership roles in
professional learning communities. Professional learning communities provided
opportunities for teachers to discuss their teaching practices and analyze student achievement
data. Their instructional dialogs guided instructional decisions about their lessons and
assessments of student learning.
Three of the five teacher leaders were encouraged or influenced by colleagues to
assume leadership roles. Mr. Davis, an experienced, teacher leader commented, When I
first started in 1986, there were two factions: the very traditional teachers, and those that
wanted to experiment. I drifted toward those who wanted to experiment.
Ms. House attributed her current leadership role to the former principal who served as
her mentor:
She changed my philosophy from jeans to slacks and professionalism. [She] stands as
a woman who I admire, who challenged me to be more than I could ever dream
myself to be as an educator, as a leader. She set the bar and I am still trying to get
there. Leading in a PI (program improvement) school is an ominous task. She taught
me to lead, help, guide, inspire, encourage, and make a difference. I now understand

112
that leaders sometimes have to find their place, which takes time. I am supporting the
new principal as she investigates the needs of our students and understands this
school culture.
The five teacher leaders primarily assumed leadership roles through their involvement
in professional learning communities (PLCs). They facilitated discussions with their
colleagues and administrators about how to improve their school. Ms. Smith worked with the
math department chairperson prior to scheduled PLC meetings, as noted:
I always meet with the chair before to help me strategize. Depending on the agenda,
some colleagues tend to be resistant about changes. So, I try not to hit them over the
head with information or overwhelm [them] with ideas about assessment and changes
in the pacing guides. Ive learned not to interrupt their instructional time.
Mr. Davis was adamant that it was the teachers responsibility to ensure all students
learned in their classes. He further attested, its difficult to influence the behaviors
other teachers, but the PLC network helps with this. This PLC network was also a vehicle
for teacher leaders to work with colleagues who were resistant to change or thinking out-ofthe-box.
Four teacher leaders reported serving as the liaison between their PLC members and
administration. They commonly spoke to their administrator about change and innovation
and requested support for professional development activities. Ms. House, an experienced
teacher with multiple leadership roles, explained that she viewed herself as the liaison
between the staff and the administration. She organized student achievement data and
developed teaching strategies that followed the World Languages standards to ensure that
PLC conversations were purposeful and focused. Ms. House then collaborated with

113
members of the site governance team, the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) and the
administration to secure support for proposed strategies.
I serve as a liaison between staff and administration regarding policy, contract,
curriculum, instruction, and other issues that surface seeking a working consensus
between the different [participants] [This supports] the school culture in adapt[ing]
its focus towards meeting the educational needs of all students and promotes a better
school community academically, socially, and physically.
Likewise, Mr. Davis commented, The new principal asks for input and supports staff
in finding new ways to improve the school. Ms. House scheduled ongoing meetings with
the principal to discuss PLC matters:
With all the roles I have, I just found it easier to meet and communicate with the
principal constantly. So when there are issues in our PLC or the department, I meet
with the principal to help me with solutions or listen to my concerns. It was more
difficult in the past when I taught six periods. Now its easier to meet since I only
teach five. Im always the one who represents the department and my PLC in
meetings with the principal.
In their various roles, teacher leaders supported student and teacher learning. As PLC
leaders, they continuously focused on teaching strategies, assessments, and interventions that
would improve student learning and their practice. Their willingness to have difficult
conversations, on behalf of students who were not learning, was confirmed during the PLC
observations.
What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
secondary schools?

114
Much has been written about the conditions that develop and support teacher
leadership, as well as those that disrupt and weaken its effectiveness (York-Barr & Duke,
2004). Teacher responses to the question about conditions that support or inhibit their
leadership were particularly robust.
Supports to Teachers Leadership within Ocean View High School
Teachers identified seven specific conditions that supported or influenced teacher
leadership at their school, including (a) dedicated time to meet in PLCs every two weeks
around a pre-established school-wide focus, (b) ongoing learning for teacher leaders usually
self-motivated, (c) district and site strategic plans that include teachers in decision-making,
(d) a supportive culture that embraces new ideas and change, (e) shared leadership practices,
(f) teacher empowerment, and (g) a common belief that all students can learn.
Dedicated time to meet in PLCs every two weeks with a school-wide focus. Two
teacher leaders declared that PLCs were great opportunities for teachers to lead and
collaborate with their colleagues. Not only was support evident among their colleagues
within content-area PLCs, but teacher leaders also underscored the importance of their
collaboration across PLCs, with PLC leaders meeting regularly to discuss school-wide
practices.
Although not a formal PLC leader, Mr. Garcia attested to the importance of PLCs,
PLCs are a great time to learn. We [never miss] our meetings during the month. Teachers
go over strategies for us to implement or try out in our own classes. PLC time provided
opportunities for all teachers to assume leadership roles supported by their colleagues and the
administration. As Mr. Davis said, Everyone is involved in PLCs. We meet once every

115
week to discuss and create formative assessments, of which we have many. Ms. House
underscored the supportive nature of PLCs.
We have 15 PLC days on the docket at this point. Its a great opportunity to
collaborate. We bring our computers. We look at data and every person in the PLC
has a role and facilitates an item on the agenda.
PLC meeting time was the hub of collaboration, which presented many opportunities
for teachers to lead.
Ongoing learning for teacher leaders, usually self-motivated. Ongoing learning
was perceived as supporting teacher leaders. This learning was either provided by the site or
district and in two cases, teacher leaders took the initiative to investigate math studies and
share with his colleagues. Ms. Thomas successfully completed the National Board
Certification process. She described her self-initiated learning as follows:
When working toward National Board Certification, there were four portfolio entries,
three that dealt with your students and teaching. I was trying a lot of techniques I
also had to videotape lessons, then reflect on them and respond to a series of
questions associated with the lessons I shared information with colleagues about
what I tried and how it worked. Colleagues sometimes used some of the ideas or
information for their own teaching.
Teachers at Ocean View High were not confined to learning that occurred with the
school or the district. They felt empowered to pursue to their own learning in ways that
would benefit their practice and their students.
District and site strategic plans that include teachers in decision-making. One
teacher leader believed site plans and the district strategic plan supported teacher leaders in

116
that teachers were directly involved in their development and implementation. These plans
also described and supported professional development activities, sometimes led by teachers.
Ms. House stated, We participate in wide-scale professional development I buy-in with
trends and actions of the site plan and strategic plan The teacher training described in the
site plans included AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination), QTEL (Quality
Teaching for English Learners), and SEI (Structured English Immersion). Three teacher
leaders believed that these trainings supported their efforts to advance student and teacher
learning and eventually exit program improvement status. Ms. House further affirmed,
Through the site leadership team (SLT) and Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC), we
come up with some goals and professional development that we feel are necessary to
help us exit program improvement. And those then filter into PLC conversations that
drive us to data, which helps us analyze and understand what we need to re-teach or
do better or undo so we can improve student achievement.
Ms. House also voiced a sense of urgency, Obviously the program improvement
issue has become a priority, an intense orange alert. Teacher leaders recognized the
accountability as specified in the district and site strategic plans, which they had helped to
create. Their involvement in creating these plans gave them ownership of their students
needs and compelled them to keep focused during PLC meeting times, and take subsequent
action.
A supportive school culture that embraces new ideas and change. Four teacher
leaders wanted to make a difference in their schools and in the learning progress of their
students. They all understood and voiced agreement that this could only happen in an
environment where teachers were collegial, committed, and welcomed change.

117
Ms. House described her participation in the site governance team as an example of
how teacher leaders play a primary role in establishing this supportive school culture,
welcoming of change.
When the FAC, with many new members, first met with the new principal the
meeting was intense and critical. After listening to colleagues I commented the
conversation was not professional and all did not share my sentiments. I formally
welcomed the principal and indicated the committee would agree to make every effort
to make this a better place for all, not just a few. I believe in truth and honesty. Other
members voiced similar sentiments and declared willingness to participate and
collaborate as a school and as a team. On that particular day, I felt I made an impact.
Ms. Thomas described a collective responsibility attitude and faith in teachers by the
administration as recognition of teachers roles in managing changes that impact student
achievement in a low-performing school. Ms. Thomas also found it noteworthy to mention
an increase in collective wisdom [of the faculty] as she and others reflected on teacher
practice and shared their new knowledge and discoveries about their pedagogy. Ms. Thomas
felt more celebrated when recognition was given for experimenting with innovative
teaching practices and extending the application of these new practices.
Ms. Cranley did not explicitly describe ways she acknowledged and recognized her
teachers efforts to improve instructional effectiveness at Ocean View. However, all five
teacher leaders cited a supportive culture where teachers received recognition for their ideas.
Several underscored the need to expand these celebrations of effort. Ms. House, a veteran
teacher, felt that rewards should be intrinsic and positive student results should be the

118
primary reward in low-performing schools. She felt that teachers should be intrinsically
motivated to lead positive changes in their schools.
However, Mr. Davis voiced that recognition should be ongoing and asserted that it
was less than before. Ms. Thomas concurred with Mr. Davis, Recognition needs to happen
more often. Its a good thing and should be common practice, both formally and informally.
At the time of the study, Ocean View High School was in the midst of a transition to a new
principal after working with an experienced, award-winning principal for 10 years. Mr. Davis
described the environment as hectic with a new administration, a new school calendar, very
much a perfect storm situation, things must get worse before they get better. Even though
Mr. Davis expressed this sentiment, he also acknowledged great support from the new
principal and felt optimistic about heading to a brighter future. Teacher leaders
appreciated the recognition of their efforts, but felt more recognition was needed and more
often.
Shared leadership practices. It was clear that shared leadership practices were part
of this schools culture. Two teacher leaders identified and described other teacher leaders in
the school who were not identified by the principal. Some of these teachers were resource
teachers who didnt have classroom teaching assignments, but were responsible for
monitoring and coordinating programs. Mr. Davis described these teachers as senior
teachers on campus who still have a huge impact. Ms. House described these experienced
teachers as committed professionals who build team morale and work to make it better for
the students.
Teachers described a positive environment that encouraged teachers to work together
to do what was necessary. As Mr. Davis confirmed: Meaningful discussions occur when we

119
dont get down on teachers. There are no real troubles with communicating. I facilitate
meetings and communicate what effective teaching encompasses. Ive visited other teachers
classrooms to observe and provide feedback.
The administration supported shared leadership by providing PLC meeting time
within the school day, facilitating instructionally focused trainings/workshops, affording
leadership opportunities, and motivating participants to continue to learn and improve. Mr.
Davis described the new principal as more supportive of professional development than the
former principal, especially of those teachers in the classroom, where the former principal
was more into developing teacher [leaders] who were outside the classroom.
Two teacher leaders believed they were responsible to lead the various changes that
would result in increased student performance at Ocean View High School. Mr. Garcia
described this belief as a union, we are all in this together. They saw the principal as a
facilitator who shared her leadership to improve teaching and student learning. Mr. Davis
stated this belief in the context of his content area, Administration should lead by example,
and we should also lead by example in the classroom. There should be a certain amount of
overlap, like a Venn diagram. Ms. Thomas affirmed, Its a lot of responsibility for one
person. Everyone should be accountable and lead. The mutual responsibility of leading the
school increased opportunities for teachers to assume leadership roles and the school to
improve student learning.
Teacher empowerment. It was evident that PLCs were the means to empower
teachers to become leaders. The structures and expectations for PLCs were strongly
supported by the administration as a means to review student achievement data and develop
appropriate academic interventions. Teachers were empowered to lead initiatives that

120
monitored and advanced student learning. Mr. Davis described this experience within his
department as one of the first in the district to use standardized end-of-course exams in
mathematics which were developed in a PLC, even though they werent called PLCs at the
time. Teachers were actively empowered by the principal and other administrators to
engage in PLCs or become leaders.
A common belief that all students can learn. Throughout all the interviews,
teacher leaders continuously described their leadership in terms of positively impacting
student achievement. Mr. Garcia described himself as a believer that all students can learn.
Although the principal thought otherwise, he thought that this was a common belief
throughout the school. Two teacher leaders stated that universal access to rigorous
coursework was evidence of the belief that all students can learn. Mr. Davis stated all
students had access to Advanced Placement coursework since the school had an open-door
policy. Ms. House agreed, I have four special needs students in my advanced placement
courses and they are soaring and increasing their language skills by leaps and bounds. I
expect them to pass the advanced placement test.
Mr. Garcia also concurred, I hear my colleagues talk and they are always talking on
the students behalf. So I think they want to do what is best for the students. Teacher
leaders demonstrated commitment to student learning throughout the PLC observations,
which aligned to their belief that all students can learn.
Obstacles to Teacher Leadership within Ocean View High School
Four conditions emerged from the data that teachers understood as primary inhibitors
of teacher leadership at Ocean View High. These included: district mandates and initiatives

121
not aligned with site needs, the teachers union contract, a lack of leadership training for
teachers, and lack of focus by the site administration.
District mandates and initiatives not aligned to site needs. Teacher leaders
demonstrated a willingness to take risks with new initiatives but sometimes felt stifled by
district mandates or initiatives they felt were distracting or even detrimental to their progress.
Teacher leaders cited particular initiatives they felt were already being implemented at their
school site at a high level. For example, Mr. Davis voiced discontent when the district
curriculum office issued a directive about the math sequence at Ocean View High School:
We had spent several years studying the math sequence and success of students in
Algebra and [we] decided to change. After heated discussions, we decided to offer
Intermediate Algebra after Algebra I. We did this for two years with much success
until the district ordered us to change [again]. They wanted everyone to be on the
same page. There was no regard to our success.
Mr. Davis further noted that Principal Cranley was willing, to a point, to let you
experiment but not if its going to cause her grief with district personnel; then shes prone to
say no. There was apprehension by the principal to challenge the status quo actions of the
district, which was respected by the teacher leaders. However, teacher leaders continued to
voice their opinions and make recommendations to the district office.
Teacher union contract. According to the teacher leaders interviewed, the teacher
contract failed to provide structures or incentives for teachers to become leaders. When
teachers assume leadership roles, they also assume a huge responsibility that requires a lot of
personal time. Mr. Davis stated, Its almost foolish to be a department chair since you get

122
no prep period to complete your duties. It would be nice to have more than just more work on
your plate.
Discontent with the teachers contract was also voiced during the observations of
PLCs. Teacher leaders didnt understand why the contract did not protect great teachers or
teacher leaders from a layoff notice. A field note from the English 10 PLC captured this
concern:
Teachers in the English 10 PLC were deeply concerned that two of their colleagues
had received RIF notices. They couldnt understand why their contract would protect
mediocre teachers and yet because of contract language would readily dismiss
teachers who were working hard. It was clear that the mood of several teachers was
negatively impacted by the actions of the district.
In another observation, the recent layoff notice to one of their colleagues who taught
French dismayed the World Languages PLC members. This action would eliminate the
French program at Ocean View High School as stated by the PLC leader:
We should be concerned that the recent notice to our colleague will destroy the
French program. How can the district and our union support a contract that cuts educational
programs and good teachers? We need to do something about this. We need to support our
colleague. It seems that World Languages always gets attacked first during a crisis.
The concern and confusion about the recent layoff notices permeated some of the
PLCs. However, the PLC meeting time remained focused on student learning and teacher
practice. The low morale instigated by current budget challenges did not derail the PLC
focus or teacher leaders motivation for a prolonged time.

123
Lack of leadership training for teachers. In the absence of formal leadership
training, teacher leaders expressed some concern about the adequacy of their knowledge and
skills to lead a group of colleagues or initiatives on campus. Mr. Garcia described the
experience as scary. In comparison to other teacher leaders, Mr. Garcia saw himself as a
relatively new teacher who wants to help students. He saw his primary role as teaching
and helping students. He seemed to struggle with his teacher leader role since he had no
formal leadership training.
Ms. Smith had jumped in to the Intermediate Algebra PLC leader role. She also
grappled with her ability to influence more experienced teachers who were opinionated and
often did not budge when it came to changing something. Ms. Smith often depended on a
math resource teacher to help her navigate through difficult times during PLC meetings.
The district provided PLC training to teachers at all school sites, but there was no
formal leadership training for those who were designated leaders. PLC leaders depended on
support from other teacher leaders or administrators to assist with the coordination and
implementation of initiatives. Teacher leaders felt this void could hinder their ability to
expedite interventions or initiatives that could impact student learning and improve the
school.
Lack of focus by the site administration. With a new administration, these teacher
leaders perceived a lack of clear focus on the intentional development of teacher leaders. Ms.
House described the school as a revolving door which has caused teachers to step back
and step down from assuming leadership roles in a school that is academically needy.
Even in the face of these concerns, evidence from the teacher leader interviews
suggests that teachers were encouraged or influenced by their colleagues to assume

124
leadership roles. Four teacher leaders provided direction in professional learning
communities where they led discussions and developed actions to improve their school.
Teacher leaders also provided mentoring for their colleagues and functioned as supporters of
students, doing whatever it took to advance student learning.
Phase IV: Professional Learning Community (PLC) Observations
Professional learning communities (PLCs) were major vehicles for teachers to
demonstrate leadership and facilitate change and innovation. Hence, the researcher conducted
four observations of PLC meetings to further investigate teacher leadership.
The following comments are based on descriptive and reflective notes taken during
the observations following the Observation Protocol Guide (Appendix I).
Organization
Professional learning communities (PLCs) were organized by content and observed in
the areas of English 10, Intermediate Algebra, and World Languages. Four PLC observations
were conducted with two observations occurring in the World Languages professional
learning community. Participation, collaboration, agenda topics, and group dynamics were
examined during a 1-hour observation period.
The PLCs ranged from 3-7 participants each being led by a PLC leader, also
acknowledged as a teacher leader. No participants were late to the PLC sessions. However,
three of the four PLCs had members who were absent for various reasons. The World
Languages PLC and the English 10 PLC had members who had received layoff notices and
were at a district office hearing to rescind the notices. The second observation of the World
Languages PLC had all seven members present.

125
Participation and Collaboration
All four PLCs demonstrated a high degree of participation and collaboration. Each
PLC leader facilitated the groups work, and, in all cases, allowed for all group members to
participate in the discussions. Professional learning communities (PLCs), across various
content areas, attended to curriculum, instruction, and assessment matters. Learning targets
were reviewed to check for alignment to the content standards. A collegial spirit permeated
teachers communication around instructional strategies and student-related matters. In the
first observation of the World Languages PLC, collaboration was evident as described by the
observer:
Ms. House, the PLC leader, passed out an agenda (Appendix P) that included the
following topics: member attendance, items for discussion, feedback, and actions. This tool
allowed the team members to stay focused on the agreed-upon topics and maximize
collaboration. Ms. House used the agenda to guide the discussion and pace the time to cover
each topic. Even though Ms. House facilitated and led the meeting, she allowed ample
opportunities for all members to participate. PLC members respected each others time to
speak and were never observed speaking over each other. They were always collegial and
respectful.
The English 10 PLC demonstrated teachers working together clarifying a common
formative assessment layout for writing sample topics.
The majority of the teachers were present at the meeting. Two teachers were absent
due to the recent issuance of Reduction-in-Force notices (RIF) or lay-off notices. These
teachers were attending a hearing with an administrative, labor judge. All teachers present
collaborated as they charted the multiple elements that were necessary to develop optimal

126
multiple- choice questions. Everyone participated and engaged on topic throughout the
meeting. Teachers chimed in when necessary. The PLC leader encouraged input about the
common formative assessment (CFA) rubric. The flow of the conversation ranged from the
actual layout of the CFA to the content being tested. Each teacher contributed two questions
for the common formative assessment. Final decisions about the CFA were by the group
consensus.
In the first World Languages PLC meeting, Ms. House posed a question related to the
agenda item for all group members to respond, How do you engage your students in
academic discourse that promotes academic language development? The discussion allowed
for the flow of conversation from one group member to another without interruption from the
leader. Across the PLCs teachers were seen collectively assessing their impact based on the
progress of their students- a critical shift needed at a program improvement school.
Autonomous Agenda Setting
Professional learning community meetings were highly organized and structured,
using a formal agenda that was prepared in advance. Formal communication systems across
PLCs were evident through publication of PLC minutes (see Appendices Q & R). A specific,
consistent agenda format was not observed across the four PLCs. PLC leaders created their
own agendas, with no direct guidance from the administration. Throughout the professional
learning community meeting observations, teachers demonstrated autonomous behavior,
reinforcing the PLC leaders view that they were free to try new ways to improve teaching
and learning in the school. In the World Languages PLC, the agenda included an item
entitled, Action Work from the Last PLC. Here they evaluated the current status of
previous action items, holding themselves to account and making decisions about next steps.

127
Also in the World Languages PLC, Cornell note taking was discussed as a strategy that
would be incorporated in all World Languages courses. Teachers shared their daily routines
in establishing this strategy. Additionally, the PLC leader presented a learning target format.
In three of the four PLCs, student achievement was directly addressed. The
Intermediate Algebra PLC specifically reviewed student results from a previously
developed quiz and made modifications to improve the quiz. Only the World Languages
PLC discussed the budget as stated by the PLC leader in the first observation:
We need to find out about the status of our budget. Each student will need a tape
recorder for a portion of the Advanced Placement test and we need to be prepared. Do
we need to buy batteries, too? I will talk to the principal.
Professional learning communities in World Languages, Intermediate Algebra, and
English 10 had clearly delineated learning targets that were aligned to the state standards.
The teachers in the World Languages PLC and the English 10 PLC used the learning targets
to guide their discussion about daily instruction and to construct their common formative
assessments (CFAs) as cited in these field notes:
Their group work revolved around creating and refining CFAs and modifying their
instructional focus accordingly. Instructional strategies such as chunking, charting, and
Cornell note-taking were addressed in their discussions.
Although evidence suggests PLCs were autonomous in setting their agendas, all four
PLCs addressed student progress or achievement in their meetings. Teachers reviewed
common formative assessments, AP practice test data, and unit test data to inform their PLC
meetings. The World Languages PLC and English 10 PLC had an ongoing agenda item that
addressed follow-up action work from the previous meeting (Appendix P). Both World

128
Languages PLC meetings and the Intermediate Algebra PLC focused on, Student
achievement discussions centered on D/F grades and the creation of learning contracts for
struggling students. The English 10 PLC reviewed a writing assessment rubric that was
created by the group members to ensure the instrument was evaluating the correct writing
skills. The second World Languages PLC reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of
using two different grade-monitoring programs.
Group Dynamics
Throughout the four observations, group members were highly receptive of the
opinions and direction of the PLC leaders. The first World Languages PLC meeting
reflected the following field notes:
The PLC leader proposed a script of testing procedures to implement throughout the
AP testing period. Teachers engaged in a discussion about the details of the protocol.
Another teacher proposed the idea of a mock AP test day for students with the hopes that this
would alleviate some of the anxiety during the real test day. All teachers, including the
leader, accepted the idea. A plan was developed for the implementation of the mock AP test
day.
Collaboration was demonstrated in all the meetings, even when deference was made
to a senior member of one PLC who was not the leader in the Intermediate Algebra PLC.
The PLC leaders encouraged all group members to participate in the discussions, which
maximized collaboration. There was a collegial mindset of working together to accomplish
goals that led to in-depth discussions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the
World Languages and English 10 PLCs.

129
PLC meetings were not devoid of affect. Although discussions were focused
according to pre-established agenda items and appeared to proceed according to accepted
group norms, participants brought their passions and concerns to the table. They worked
through challenges, facing difficult conversations head on. In the second World Languages
PLC meeting, teachers engaged in a discussion about the disturbing prevalence of Ds and
Fs. According to filed notes,
A passionate discussion about D and F grades occurred in this PLC. All members
were engaged in this discussion. Teachers looked worried about the problem. Others
looked perplexed about solutions. The leader skillfully asked teachers to share their
approaches to working with students who were receiving D or F grades. In all cases,
teachers reported some semblance of an intervention plan. Teachers then scrutinized
the various interventions with the goal of developing a cohesive PLC plan to address
all their struggling students.
Although the administration demonstrated commitment to the ongoing development
of PLCs, this supportive environment was adversely affected by budget challenges at the
time of the study. Teachers, some who were teacher leaders, had been issued layoff notices.
Because PLCs were viewed as safe environments, members felt comfortable sharing their
disappointment with district level leaders, as well as their concerns for their colleagues.
According to field notes:
The PLC leader worked diligently to be inclusive of all members during the
discussion but two team members were absent due to RIF (reduction in force) notices.
Concerns were voiced about the districts process for establishing these notices and
comments were made about the upcoming board member elections. Discontent was evident

130
through comments such as, How could they do this to good teachers? Does the district
office keep correct records of teacher trainings? One of the released teachers is a trainer
herself. This caused a slight derailment of the agenda but the leader was able to navigate the
discussion back to common formative assessments.
The PLC leader reflected on the dynamics of the group in the face of these
circumstances that were out of their control.
The district is undoing the French program, which is a big issue. We need to help and
support our colleagues who are being noticed. These are bad times for education but
we need to continue to do our best for our students.
Professional learning communities exhibited a collaborative culture where teachers
worked autonomously to address the learning needs of students. It was clear that the PLC
leader had a defined role but all the team members were mutually accountable for the work
during the meeting. Teachers in the PLC engaged in collective inquiry about common
formative assessments (CFAs) and had candid conversations about their results with past
CFAs. This discussion then led to an honest assessment of the teachers current practices and
their impact on student learning. The PLC leader guided the work of the collaborative team
to engage in meaningful discourse about student and teacher learning even when layoffs were
looming and impacting team members.
Summary
This chapter provided findings for each of the four phases within this mixed-methods
design. In phase one, quantitative methodology was employed to identify the case study
school by using the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS). Phase One identified the
school with highest level of teacher leadership, which named the case study school to be

131
further explored for teacher leadership in phases two, three, and four. Phase Two included an
in-depth interview with the case study principal towards identification of teacher leaders. In
Phase Three, the researcher conducted one-hour interviews with five teacher leaders. In
Phase Four, four observations were made at professional learning community meetings.
Findings suggest that teacher leader roles vary widely, and that PLC and mentoring were the
most commonly cited leadership roles. Further noted is that teachers became leaders when
encouraged by colleagues to assume leadership roles. PLC scheduling, strategic planning,
support of change, and a positive work environment were indicated as supports to the
development of teacher leaders. Mandates, unions, and trainings were listed as areas, which
inhibited teacher leadership.
Upon triangulation of the principal interview, the teacher interviews, and the PLC
observations, the seven dimensions of teacher leadership (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001)
emerged as common themes throughout the qualitative phases of the study. The seven
dimensions were developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality, participation,
open communication, and positive environment. These data provided a deeper examination
of teacher leadership in a program improvement high school, which was making a positive
impact on student achievement. The examination confirmed that teacher leadership can be
nurtured even within struggling schools.
The findings supported the conceptual framework of teacher leadership developed by
the researcher (Figure 1, p. 50). Initially, the framework was conceived as a linear model.
However, as the study unfolded, the findings and results revealed the cyclical nature and
fluidity of teacher leadership in program improvement secondary schools. The model
represents teacher leadership as an ongoing phenomenon, which is rooted in a supportive

132
school culture that empowers teachers to lead, reflect, and change their practice and influence
student learning. Reeves (2009) asserts teacher leadership is a concept that extends far
beyond a slogan and has become an integral part of school reform (p. 137). The study
findings and resultant conceptual framework attest to this assertion. Ocean View High
School fueled their reform efforts through collaborative professional learning communities
led by teacher leaders. A discussion of the findings, limitations of the study,
recommendations for future research and practice, and conclusions are presented in Chapter
5.

133
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In this chapter research findings are summarized and discussed in accordance with the
conceptual framework of teacher leadership presented in Figure 6, p. 134. The discussion
connects the findings to the relevant literature presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 5 also
provides a synopsis of the study, a review of the limitations, suggestions for future research,
and implications for action. This study investigated teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools that were making steady student achievement gains
according to NCLB guidelines.
As principals of low-performing schools collaborate with teacher leaders, they seek
ways to improve instructional and organizational practices so that all students have
opportunities to realize high levels of learning and achievement. These principals and
teachers face an ever-changing landscape of educational reforms at local, state, and national
levels, instilling within them a sense of urgency to create these necessary changes within
their schools learning culture. This study investigated a secondary school in Program
Improvement Year 5 that had realized a high degree of teacher leadership and was making
steady improvements in student performance. Existent literature often addressed program
improvement elementary schools that were making similar gains. The discussion of findings,
as they relate to the literature, extends the current body of knowledge on teacher leadership in
program improvement secondary schools. Consideration of unexpected findings,
disconfirming evidence, and overall implications of the research may further challenge
traditional norms of practice in struggling schools in ways that foster teacher leadership
within these highly challenged environments. Reinventing school cultures to promote

134
teacher leadership requires parallel leadership, effective collaboration, and communities of
practice that persistently address student achievement goals and teaching practice.
In Chapter 2, in-depth investigation of various definitions and conceptions of teacher
leadership resulted in development of a conceptual framework of the phenomenon, providing
a theoretical lens through which to conduct the research reported here. The theoretical
framework of teacher leadership is displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Theoretical Framework of Teacher Leadership.

135
Upon further consideration of research findings and results through this lens,
evidence suggests that teacher leadership in program improvement secondary schools seeks
to establish an open, responsible, and accountable, learning culture. Within such a culture,
teachers feel safe and motivated to collaboratively influence their colleagues and
administrators to improve teaching practices with the goal of increasing student learning and
achievement.
School cultures that support teacher leadership attend to the following dimensions:
developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality, participation, open
communication, and positive environment (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). Administrators,
who work with teachers in a supportive culture, identify and encourage norms of practice that
help to advance and expand leadership. Purposeful conversations, effective collaboration,
willingness to participate, and new working relationships are cultural norms that exist in
schools robust with teacher leadership. These norms of practice enable teachers who are
respected, trusted, and learning-oriented to assume leadership roles. As teachers are
empowered to function as leaders, they create communities of practice that address teacher
practice and student learning. This conceptual framework of teacher leadership provides
support to change and influence student learning and teacher practice, which are actions
needed in program improvement schools.
Summary of the Study
This four-phase, sequential mixed methods study was designed to examine teacher
leadership in program improvement secondary schools that were making steady gains in
student achievement. The viewpoint of teacher leadership as a means for implementing
change, by way of impacting teacher practice, provided the conceptual underpinning for the

136
study. The challenge for program improvement schools centers on the identification of
behaviors, strategies, or structures that contribute positively to organizational learning and
renewal. This ongoing learning and renewal is necessary in order to sustain reforms long
enough to make a difference for students (Fullan, 2001). Research supports the primacy of
shared or parallel leadership practices to guide instructional improvement and develop a
school culture of mutual responsibility for student learning (Elmore, 2004). Teacher
leadership creates the necessary conditions within a school whereby teachers assume this
collaborative responsibility for improving their own and each others practice.
Therefore, the following questions guided this study:
1. How do administrators and teachers in persistently under-performing high schools,
labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and functions of teacher leaders?
2. To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume leadership roles in program
improvement high schools?
3. What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within program improvement
high schools?
To examine these questions, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in
four phases. In phase one, the researcher employed the Teacher Leadership School Survey to
identify the case study school. According to the analysis of survey data, Ocean View High
School scored highest in overall leadership and scored highest in each of the seven TLSS
dimensions. As demonstrated in the sample school profiles, Ocean View further
demonstrated significant growth in student achievement over a three-year period. Thus, in
phases two, three, and four, case study methodologies were used to investigate teacher
leadership within Ocean View High School. The following findings surfaced throughout the

137
principal interview, the teacher leader interviews, and the observations of the professional
learning communities.
Discussion of Major Findings and Results
The findings and results from this study support previous research on teacher
leadership, to a large degree. However, several key findings address the specific nuances of
school cultures conducive of teacher leadership within highly challenged secondary schools.
This discussion will address substantive findings according to the major themes contained
within the aforementioned conceptual framework of teacher leadership. The themes, which
were described in the introduction of this chapter include: school culture, norms of practice,
teacher leader characteristics, and communities of practice. Additionally, the researcher will
discuss conditions that inhibit teacher leadership and unexpected findings of the study.
School Culture
A supportive culture that embraces new ideas and welcomes change is a necessary
antecedent to improving a struggling school. Such a supportive culture allows teachers to
emerge as leaders and make substantive decisions that impact student learning and teacher
practice. However, the inclusion of teachers and others in decision making is not as
comfortable as when this responsibility is placed on a few individuals (Katzenmeyer &
Moller, 2001, p. 27). It is incumbent upon principals to create school cultures that minimize
this discomfort and empower teachers to become leaders. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
studied schools that supported teacher leadership and discovered identifiable characteristics
or dimensions, which included: developmental focus, recognition, autonomy, collegiality,
participation, open communication, and positive environment. In the current study, teacher

138
responses to the TLSS survey, and subsequent teacher leader and principal responses to
open-ended interview questions, substantiated the importance of these cultural dimensions.
Parallel leadership opened the door for many teachers to assume leadership roles, thus
expanding the overall leadership capacity within the school. This type of leadership allowed
the principal and teachers to collaborate and collectively address concerns related to students
academic performance (Crowther et al., 2002). Ms. Cranley, the principal, supported the
development of teacher leaders and readily communicated with teachers about leadership
opportunities that could help to advance the school efforts to improve. She appeared to
understand her role as building leadership capacity from the classroom out. This
understanding supports the notion that teacher leadership should be grounded in the teachers
work with his or her students (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). After reviewing the schools
past practice of appointing a small number of teacher leaders who were released from fulltime teaching responsibilities (Mangin, 2007), the principal changed the procedures for
identifying teacher leaders. Cranley developed a more transparent process, encouraging all
interested teachers to pursue leadership roles and responsibilities. The principal created
multiple opportunities for teachers to lead from within their classrooms and aligned resources
to support their efforts. Effective teacher leadership within this program improvement school
resulted from the principals willing to initiate a purposeful cultural change in order to
encourage more teachers to lead.
Each of the dimensions of teacher leadership as described by Katzemeyer and Moller
(2001) were present to greater or lesser degrees within the culture of Ocean View High
School. The results of the Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS) indicated a noteworthy
prevalence of developmental focus, recognition, collegiality, and autonomy. Further

139
triangulation with qualitative data sources underscored the strong presence of collegiality and
developmental focus, as well as open communication and participation. The significant
presence of collegiality and developmental focus, as evidenced by survey results in
combination with qualitative findings, underscored their importance in a program
improvement secondary school. Hence, collegiality and developmental focus will be
highlighted in this discussion about school culture.
Collegiality and collaboration permeated the culture of Ocean View High School.
Effective collaboration is essential for developing leadership capacity within schools (Slater,
2008). The principal in the study modeled a collegial leadership style that promoted teacher
leadership and set the stage to grapple with issues of program improvement. During the
observations of professional learning communities, changes in student assessment processes
and shifts in teaching practices were orchestrated by teacher leaders in a collegial, respectful
manner. Discussions were positively focused on solving students academic problems by
creating learning plans.
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) asserted building a learning community cannot
depend on the principal alone (p. 46). In a desire to improve their school and remove the
program improvement label, teachers at Ocean View High School emerged from their
classrooms to collaborate and influence their colleagues decisions about instructional
matters. Teacher leaders shared practices, mutually problem-solved, reflected, and learned
from their experiences. However, the principal acknowledged a need to further heighten
collaboration, building a level of trust that allowed peer observations to occur throughout the
school. For Ms. Cranley, this de-privatization of practice would signal a true collegial culture
at Ocean View.

140
Developmental focus corroborated third wave thinking by engaging teacher leaders
in learning new knowledge and skills that helped them in their roles as mentors and
supporters of student learning (Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978). In some cases, teacher leaders
initiated their own learning and provided professional development trainings for their peers.
In other instances, professional development activities offered by the district office promoted
teacher leadership opportunities and targeted the needs of struggling learners in program
improvement schools. Most notable were the ongoing trainings on the development of
professional learning communities, which will be discussed in a later section of the findings.
School culture is recognized as a dominant influence on the success of improvement
initiatives in schools (Fullan, 2001). Principals that promote the dimensions of teacher
leadership within their school cultures adopt norms of practice that enable teachers to
become leaders. These norms of practice include: purposeful conversations, effective
collaboration, willingness to participate, and new working relationships.
Norms of Practice
Specific norms of practice related to successful teacher leadership enabled teachers to
become change agents within this secondary program improvement school. These norms of
practice were directly observed during dedicated meeting times usually in PLCs. Throughout
the observations, teacher leaders listened to their colleagues to understand how different
issues within and outside the classroom impacted their instructional knowledge and practice.
Long-standing norms of practice within schools challenge the prospects of teacher leadership
(York-Barr & Duke, 2004). However, the teacher leaders at Ocean View worked with the
administrators to establish new norms that engaged teachers in purposeful conversations,
created effective collaborative meeting times, and motivated teachers to participate in

141
decision making; therefore, establishing new working relationships within a program
improvement school.
Purposeful Conversations
Teacher leaders conducted purposeful conversations with colleagues in formal and
informal ways. Dedicated meeting times embedded in the school day allowed these
conversations to occur in a formal manner. During PLCs, teacher leaders and their
colleagues engaged in discussions about student achievement often using common formative
exam results as agenda topics. This focus supported the use of data to sustain conversations
about the right work (Reeves, 2002). Since the teacher leaders were leading from within their
classrooms, their colleagues trusted their intentions and, thus, felt safe about discussing
school improvement efforts. Therefore, teacher leaders provided direct support to their peers
and encouraged them to engage in learning-based dialog within safe environments, usually
their classrooms (Wellman & Lipton, 2007). During PLC meetings, teacher leaders
demonstrated an ability to conduct data-driven conversations that often led to changes within
the instructional program of their content areas.
Effective Collaboration
The call to collaborate has become a pervasive theme in the school reform movement
(Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2001; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Establishing effective collaborative
relationships is key to addressing the challenges of a program improvement secondary
school. Consequently, administrators and teachers at Ocean View High School engaged in
collaboration within the context of school improvement initiatives such as professional
learning communities. Collaboration was identified by the principal as a key factor for
promoting teacher leadership in a program improvement secondary school.

142
The school created a trusting, learning environment that permitted effective
communication among teachers and between teachers and administrators. Slater (2008)
underscored the importance of trusting and respectful relations as essential to building
effective collaboration. Teacher leaders took initiative in creating opportunities for their
peers to learn. Ms. Thomas, a National Board Certified Teacher, shared and modeled lessons
that she developed in her certification process. Her collaboration with her colleagues
deepened and extended their knowledge and expertise about teaching. This collaboration was
itself a support for further collaborative efforts in Ms. Thomas department and professional
learning community.
As mentioned earlier, the principal strongly support collaboration in the school. In
her daily classroom visits, Ms. Cranley encouraged teachers to engage in collaborative
inquiry about the academic progress of their students. Her instructional focus, coupled with
her collaborative leadership style, could help to improve student achievement (Sherman,
2000). The principals collaborative style encouraged and nurtured the empowerment and
capacity for other teachers to lead. Teacher leaders viewed her as supportive and willing to
try new ideas for the sake of improving the school. Her style and subsequent actions
motivated teacher leaders to continue their collaborative work and inspired others to
collaborate or participate as teacher leaders.
Willingness to Participate
Research indicated that teacher-principal working relationships greatly influenced
teachers willingness to participate in school decisions (Smylie, 1992). Teacher leaders saw
themselves as active agents and displayed high levels of autonomy as they facilitated
professional learning communities. The willingness of teachers to take on leadership

143
responsibilities framed their commitment to address the schools issues with various program
improvements. With this ownership, teacher leaders assumed responsibility for student
learning and the edification of their own practice. Teacher leaders acknowledged the good
deeds of their colleagues, constantly on the prowl for effective teaching practices that made a
difference in student learning.
The administration, specifically the principal, significantly influenced teachers to
become leaders. One leader praised the former principal as a mentor who inspired her to
become a leader. An assistant principal also encouraged teachers to assume responsibility for
their own learning by empowering them to participate in, and lead, professional development
activities within the school. Clearly, past practice indicated that teachers had been
encouraged to become leaders for some time. The seeds had been planted and the new
principal was sowing the seeds to continue the expansion of teacher leadership.
New Working Relationships
By developing trusting and collaborative relationships, teacher leaders influence their
colleagues and administrators. As teacher leadership has become a means to enhance
teaching and learning, and improve schools, it has forged opportunities for new working
relationships among teachers and with administrators. Although the relationships between
teacher leaders and other teachers are clearly important, it is the relationship between teacher
leaders and their principals that may be most crucial, especially in the early stages of
leadership development (Smylie & Brownlee-Conyers, 1992). The teacher leaders and the
principal of Ocean View High School developed a dynamic, interactive, and intentional
relationship grounded in their desire to improve their school by increasing student
achievement.

144
An enduring condition that promoted teacher leadership was the collegiality and
ongoing collaboration between the teacher leaders and the principal. Teacher leaders never
hesitated to engage in instructional discourse with the principal. In formal and informal
conversations, the interaction focused on classroom instruction and student learning.
Teacher leaders trusted the principal and took risks leading initiatives. Teacher leaders were
empowered to have courageous conversations with colleagues about their practice and
student results.
New working relationships were evident among teacher leaders, as well as with the
principal. Even though the principal had just arrived at the school, teacher leaders vowed to
support her efforts to improve the school by improving instructional practices and learning
new methodologies to teach struggling students such as English learners. The strategic focus
on English learners would help to improve scores on the state mandated test and meet AYP
benchmarks. Together, teacher leaders and principals assumed responsibility and
accountability for student performance.
The literature suggests that development of new working relationships between
teacher leaders and their principals is a complex and complicated matter (Smylie &
Brownlee-Conyers, 1992). Within a program improvement school, the historical relationship
between the teachers and the principal, and the attitudes about collaboration deeply impact
these new relationships. Across the findings, teacher leaders continuously defined their roles
and relationships with their peers and the principal as mediating instructional changes within
the school. The roles and functions of teacher leaders defined their characteristics and
reputations. The principal and teacher leaders at Ocean View High School viewed
themselves and each other as adaptive, respectful, trusting, and learning-oriented.

145
Characteristics of Teacher Leaders
Teacher leaders at Ocean View High School were student-oriented and shared a
common belief that all students can learn. Their leadership efforts supported student
learning and the improvement of instruction. This commitment compelled them to seek
alternative ways to address students academic needs and challenged their own teaching
practice to change, if needed. They influenced their peers to participate in leadership
activities, facilitated teacher professional development activities, and confronted barriers to
their own leadership development (Bronson, 2007). Teacher leaders were conscious of the
schools program improvement status and used student achievement data to guide their
collaborative discussions with peers.
Principal Cranley empowered teachers who supported student learning and active
collaboration. Teachers led from within the classroom to influence peers in their classroom
practice and school-wide practices. Known to be excellent teachers, teacher leaders
possessed strong pedagogical and interpersonal skills.
PLC leadership roles were imperative to maintaining a student achievement focus and
investigating school-wide issues about instruction. They functioned as PLC leaders, mentors,
and supporters of student learning who used data to monitor student progress. In their coteaching roles, teacher leaders demonstrated best practices and modeled lessons.
Liberman (1992) claimed that many teacher leadership roles exist,varying from one
school to another. After interviewing teacher leaders, her study revealed two primary roles:
professional learning community leader and co-teacher. Both of these roles are embedded
within instructional and participative leadership practices and the perspectives of parallel
leadership. The culture at Ocean View High School supported the two primary roles of

146
teacher leaders. The five teacher leaders clearly understood that only collective efforts would
move the school forward. The constant mantra, We are all in this together, was stated as a
validation for the professional learning communities facilitated by the teacher leaders.
The professional learning community structures, which permeated Ocean View High
School, allowed collaborative actions between teacher leaders and their peers as well as their
students. During professional development days, they demonstrated best practices that were
later explored in their peers classrooms. Teacher leaders also served as liaisons between site
administrators, district office personnel, and their department members.
Teacher leaders spearheaded innovations that impacted student learning and changed
the culture of the school. They dedicated their own time to coordinate weekend tutoring
programs that were well attended and popular with the students and their department
members. One teacher leader wanted to ensure that students understood that he wasnt giving
up on them if they couldnt grasp math concepts during class time. Teacher leaders
prioritized students first as they described their multiple roles and identifiable characteristics.
The roles and functions of teacher leaders defined their characteristics and ability to
create communities of practice. Teacher leaders addressed school improvement issues
largely at the instructional level as they led from within their classrooms. Through the
expansion of their leadership roles, teachers facilitated professional learning communities
with the hope of continuously improving teaching and learning and increasing the
achievement of every student.
Communities of Practice
Research makes a strong case for promoting professional communities of practice in
schools (Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Printy, 2002, 2008; Scribner et al., 2002; Wenger, 1998).

147
These studies suggest that professional communities facilitate changes in teacher practices
that lead to improved student learning. Ocean View High School adopted the concept of
communities of practice by creating functional professional learning communities (PLCs)
that were action-oriented and committed to continuous improvement. DuFour et al. (2008)
define professional learning communities as educators committed to working
collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve
better results for the students they serve. Professional learning communities operate under the
assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous, job-embedded
learning for educators (p. 14). Throughout the teacher leader interviews, the principal
interview, and the PLC observations, the significance of PLCs was continuously highlighted
as a site initiative that positively impacted instructional improvement and created
opportunities for teachers to lead.
Professional learning communities (PLCs), as formal structures, were grounded in the
notion of communities of practice, which addressed instructional issues and learning
challenges of students at Ocean View High School. The principal and the district office
supported the schools efforts to incorporate PLCs throughout the different content areas. A
proactive principal and central office support were both cited in the literature as essential for
the successful implementation of communities of practice (Eilers & Camacho, 2007). During
PLC meetings, teacher leaders and their colleagues demonstrated high accountability for
student achievement results through the analysis of site-based, state, national assessments.
Through meeting agendas and discussions teacher leaders and their team members
demonstrated commitment to the purposes of PLCs.

148
Teacher learning was at the crux of professional learning communities. Teachers
were engaged in professional development activities that addressed the needs of struggling
learners such as AVID and Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL). Through the
implementation of AVID and QTEL strategies and collaboration, teacher leaders were able to
assess the progress of struggling learners and address the modification of assessments and
teaching practices.
PLCs provided a safe haven for these tough conversations to occur. Reflective dialogue
during the PLCs allowed teachers to share skills, insights, and uncertainties about their
pedagogy. This ongoing dialogue disrupted the traditional norms of content balkanization
and expertise, so prevalent within secondary schools In this way, the collaboration which
occurred in PLCs helped teachers share their instructional expertise, extending their focus
beyond the delivery of content to address, in detail, students learning needs. These
outcomes were critical as Ocean View High School addressed their program improvement
status.
The active collaboration in PLCs paved the way for creating a shared identity among
the teachers and administrators, particularly the principal (Scribner et al., 2002). This newly
found identity empowered teacher leaders to take risks and make decisions that impacted
student learning. Mr. Davis had a history of coordinating a Saturday program that was
making a difference in students understanding and accessing higher-level mathematics. In
other instances, teacher leaders, in conjunction with their PLC members, created instructional
interventions for challenged students. It appeared that a collectively efficacious culture had
been developing at Ocean View High School for some time.

149
The principals ability to harness professional autonomy for the good of the
organization was evident in her willingness to trust teacher leaders and build leadership
capacity through PLCs. Teachers were involved in making major instructional decisions that
originated in PLCs. Effective communication during PLCs provided opportunities for
teachers to not only address challenges with teaching and learning, but to recognize and
support each others needs and interests as professionals. Mr. Garcia didnt hesitate to
consult with his peers when he was implementing a school-wide Art project. The respect and
collaboration displayed during PLCs enabled teacher leaders to assume additional
responsibilities without the fear of failure.
Implementing professional learning communities is a bottom-up process (Wenger,
1998). The principals vow to PLCs and inclusive decision-making engendered a
commitment to the schools goals of institutionalizing PLCs and becoming high performing.
Eilers and Camacho (2007) emphasized the important role of principals as schools attempt to
make positive changes in a school culture. The principal viewed herself as a strategic leader
who empowered teachers to become leaders for the primary purpose of improving student
learning. Professional learning communities, largely controlled by teachers, provided the
vehicle for leadership and the context for accountability.
The major findings suggested conditions that cultivate and support teacher leadership
in a program improvement secondary school. Consistent with the research, these findings
included norms of practice that enabled teachers to lead communities of practice.
Nonetheless, conditions that inhibit teacher leadership also surfaced in the findings.

150
Barriers to Teacher Leadership
It can be stated that unsupportive school cultures that uphold traditional norms of
practice, and create weak communities of practice, establish barriers for the development of
teacher leadership. That is, program improvement secondary schools, which do not support
collaboration, new working relationships, and professional learning communities, discourage
teachers from assuming leadership roles. Scholars in the area of teacher leadership have
discovered that environments that support and nurture teacher leadership are not endemic to
many schools (Crowther et al., 2002, p. vii). Teacher leaders and the principal identified the
following impediments confronting the development of teacher leadership at Ocean View
High School: the teachers union contract, lack of administrative direction, districtmandates, and lack of leadership training for teachers. Principals and teacher leaders in
program improvement schools should acknowledge these structural barriers and attend to the
task of designing a healthy context for teacher leadership (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001).
Teachers Union Contract
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) declared, It is amazing that teacher leadership is
possible in schools as they are currently structured (p. 81). Two teachers questioned their
own unions contract for not delineating incentives that would motivate teachers to become
leaders in their schools. They felt the teachers union contract created a bureaucracy that
pigeonholed parallel, shared leadership practices and instead promoted isolationism among
teachers. In this sense, the union contract harkened back to traditional norms of teacher
practiced and, thus, served as an obstacle for the development of teacher leadership
throughout the school (Pellicer & Anderson, 1995). In fact, unions may choose to obstruct

151
the development of teacher leaders when they see them as challenging the traditional patterns
of collective bargaining (Wasley, 1991).
Lack of Administrative Direction
Active support of principals and administrators is a necessary condition for teacher
leadership to flourish. Even though the teacher leaders acknowledged the principals support
for their work as leaders, they also voiced a deep concern for the constant changes on the
administrative team members. The principal, who had promoted teachers leading from
outside of the classroom, had just retired after 11 years at Ocean View High School. She,
along with one of three assistant principals, had been the constant supporters of teacher
leaders at the school.
These administrator moves were perceived as causing instability in the culture and
left teachers feeling that things had to start over every time there was a change in leadership.
It seemed to teacher leaders that the promotion of teacher leadership was stifled as changes in
administrative personnel occurred. This challenge was described as the revolving door
syndrome. Continual changes in formal leadership can hinder the teachers focus on student
achievement as they constantly adapt to new supervisors who may bring new ideas or
initiatives to program improvement schools. One teacher leader described the challenge as
being on a constant orange alert since an initiative or strategy is not given enough time for
full impact on student learning or teacher practice.
District Mandates
District office personnel, largely perceived by teacher leaders as supportive of
professional learning communities, were also seen as obstructers of their leadership, due to
curriculum mandates that hurt students at the site level. This was a particularly sensitive issue

152
with the math teacher leader and the math department of Ocean View High School. Teachers
were forced to change the math sequence offerings to the more traditional sequence, even
after preliminary common formative assessment data indicated increased student learning
when implementing Ocean View Highs sequence.
Alternate methods of curriculum, instruction, and assessment should be considered if
schools are to be accountable for student results in program improvement schools. As
districts address the challenges of program improvement, they should establish the
classroom as the central unit of analysis in all district-generated data, professional
development plans, and teacher leadership initiatives (Reeves, 2008, p.75). Further claims
by Reeves (2008) indicated that the least helpful data in education were district averages,
followed closely by school averages.
Lack of Leadership Training
In their seminal work on teacher leadership, Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) asserted
supporting teacher leadership means understanding the concept, awakening the
understanding of teachers themselves to their leadership potential, and then providing for the
development of teacher leadership (pp. 123-124). Their view underscored the importance of
structured training and assistance for teacher leaders, especially those leading in program
improvement schools. Teacher leaders voiced fear of making needless mistakes as they led
PLCs and alluded to confusion about their roles, functions, and authority to make schoolwide decisions. In one instance, the teacher did not know the reason for being named a
teacher leader.
Teacher leaders at Ocean View High School felt much more training was needed to
nurture their leadership potential. They voiced strong concerns about their preparation to be

153
leaders since no one taught them how to lead. Teacher leaders were confident about their
teaching practice and ability to lead or manage a classroom full of students, but they wanted
more formal training and knowledge about leadership practices and needed skills to influence
colleagues in their leadership roles. In this way, teacher leaders would be more adept at
impacting the practice of their peers, which could result in improved student achievement.
Despite the teacher leaders perception about a lack of leadership training, the district
provided in-depth professional learning community (PLC) training to all schools. PLC
training provided opportunities for teachers to engage in collective inquiry that questioned
the status quo and sought to develop new strategies that could improve student achievement
results. Through collaborative teams, usually structured by course content, teachers were
also able to learn from one another, which fueled the continuous improvement process. The
commitment to continuous improvement was evident in the PLC observations.
Study findings and results indicate strong support for the plethora of literature
addressing teacher leadership. These findings and results are particularly significant in that
they were grounded in the experiences of a program improvement year 5 school that was
making steady gains in student achievement. Teacher leaders were respected and trusted as
learning leaders who facilitated purposeful communities of practice. Within a supportive
culture, teacher leaders collaborated with their peers and students to influence student
learning and change teacher practice. Their commitment to students, always putting students
in the forefront their leadership roles, and willingness to change their practice for the sake of
improving student achievement, drove their goals to meet AYP and become a higher
performing school. The next section will address the unexpected findings that surfaced from
the analysis.

154
Unexpected Findings and Disconfirming Evidence
As the researcher analyzed qualitative data, disconfirming evidence surfaced from the
principal and teacher leader interviews. Additionally, upon triangulating qualitative data and
comparing these data to survey results, the researcher identified unexpected findings
addressing the dimensions of school culture. The disconfirming evidence deriving from the
principal interview included concerns about a lack of trust among teachers, as well as deficit
thinking on the part of some teachers. The teacher leader interviews revealed unexpected
findings related to low morale.
Lack of Trust
As a program improvement school, Ocean View High faced ongoing pressure to raise
test scores and bring all students to high standards. The principals sense of urgency
compelled her to incorporate peer observations as an additional teacher leader responsibility.
Her attempt failed due to, in her opinion, a lack of trust among the teachers. She stated that,
previously, all Ocean View teacher leaders assumed out-of-classroom leadership
assignments, the nature of which may have contributed to the suspicions that emerged when
the current teacher leaders attempted to observe their peers in the classroom. Previous
research suggests that external teacher leaders may be perceived by their peers as
administrative spies (Mangin, 2005, p. 482), working in parallel fashion with
administrators. The principal further explained that she could not be the sole instructional
leader if better achievement results were to be realized. Slater (2008) recommended sharing
instructional leadership responsibilities to engage teachers more fully in school improvement
efforts and enable schools to respond better to the complex changes dictated by reform
agendas. Interestingly, teacher leaders espoused great trust among teachers in their school.

155
They engendered trust as they worked with teachers individually, in department meetings, or
professional learning communities. It should be noted that findings regarding teachers trust
in colleagues reflect the perceptions of just 25 of the 86 teachers employed at Ocean View
High, those with whom the researcher had contact. The overall level of faculty trust, as
perceived by the principal, may reflect uncertainty about a new administrative team.
Deficit Thinking
According to the principal, deficit thinking prevailed in the school and was a major
area of growth for teachers. She explained that not all teachers believed that all students
could achieve and access high levels of knowledge. Concomitantly, her concern about high
expectations for all students was clear. As a new principal, she was unsure about her plan of
action for this problem.
As principals attempt to establish cultures that promote learning for students and
teachers, it is important to consider the values and beliefs of teacher leaders. If by this
studys definition every teacher can lead, then these same teachers must share in the belief
that all students can achieve. Once again, there was a divergence of opinion between the
principal and the teacher leaders. They themselves believed that all students could learn and
had the potential to access advanced placement curricula. Furthermore, teacher leaders felt
that all teachers were student-centered in their instructional approach and believed in the
abilities of their students. In this case, the teacher leaders views contradicted those of the
principal. These divergent views could hamper the focus of instructional activities and delay
student progress.
Once again, findings related to teachers perception about their students capacity to
learn, limit themselves to 25 of 86 teachers employed at Ocean View. In addition, Mrs.

156
Cranley will likely continue to monitor her facultys thinking in this regard. Such ongoing
assessment could drive professional development activities and hiring practices for a
program improvement school.
Low Morale
Teacher leaders complained about the low morale in their school due to the issuance
of reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to their colleagues. Some of these notices were given to
fellow teacher leaders, which only augmented their frustration. Evidently, they didnt trust
that district personnel were making the right decisions based on teachers training and
credentials. In two PLC meetings, the morale issue was addressed. Teachers vowed to
support each other through the challenging budget times.
The budget crisis looming over California further aggravated the pressures that this
program improvement schools faced. Teacher leaders and principals grappled with
repercussions of scarce resources on careers of their colleagues and the programs intended to
help struggling learners. Amidst the dismal budget climate, teacher leaders maintained their
focus on student learning and their own practice during PLC meetings.
Leadership Change
The Teacher Leadership School Survey (TLSS) responses from all teachers who
attended a faculty meeting indicated that cultural supports for communication and
participation were least prevalent at the school. However, upon triangulation of the principal
interview, the teacher leader interviews, and the PLC observations, the researcher discovered
evidence of a positive environment where teachers felt a strong sense of autonomy. Such
seemingly conflicting evidence could be attributed to the recent change in principals.

157
Research strongly supports the importance of the principals role in establishing a
positive culture for teacher leadership (Crowther et al., 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001;
Murphy, 2005). The principal of Ocean View High was in her first year of leading the
school, which perhaps contributed to a lesser degree of open communication and
participation, as teachers tested the waters with a new administration. Indeed, frequent
changes in leadership only exacerbate the barriers to developing strong teacher leadership
within a program improvement school.
The disconfirming evidence and unexpected findings reported here provide deeper
insights to the complexities of teacher leadership within a program improvement secondary
school. Teachers who were leading from within the classroom knew firsthand what was
needed to improve student learning. However, teacher leaders needed specific knowledge,
skills, and beliefs to be successful change agents. If principals are to successfully promote
teacher leadership, they must be afforded sufficient longevity with their position to build a
culture of trust where participants feel safe enough to challenge unproductive habits of mind
and practice. This change of hearts and minds is especially crucial to addressing student
achievement issues and supporting student learning in a program improvement school. The
next section addresses the limitations of this study.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations should be considered as the findings and results of the study are
interpreted. A limitation identified in Chapter 1 addressed observer bias. The researchers
prior experience in incorporating teacher leadership practices in a program improvement high
school could have affected his interpretation of survey results, the principal and teacher
interviews, and the observations of professional learning communities. Using a mixed

158
methods design for the study, and selecting sample schools where the researcher had not
been employed, helped to mediate observer bias. Future research might address program
improvement schools that are not in the same district or county and do not have district
support for PLCs. Such research may add deeper understanding to different types of
communities of practice, which may also impact teacher practice and student learning.
Another limitation of the study included the small number of secondary schools in the
sample limited to a geographical location. Increasing the number of sample schools would
provide additional data to validate and enrich the findings. Expanding the geographical
location of the study would provide opportunities for more program improvement schools to
participate and potentially make way for a comparison study across the state or throughout
the country.
Additional limitations surfaced as the study unfolded. Only four professional
learning communities were observed. A greater number of observations over a longer period
could provide more insights into the effective implementation of PLCs and teacher leadership
in program improvement secondary schools. Increasing the number of PLC observations
would also provide greater possibilities of observing a struggling PLC and deepen the
understanding of PLCs as they relate to teacher leadership in a program improvement
secondary school.
Finally, data collection and analysis was affected by the capacity of the researcher.
Therefore, the sensitivity of the data instruments was a limitation. The quality of the findings
was affected by the researchers biases and his ability to conduct the study and capture data
that is relevant and meaningful to the research questions. Thus, future research in the domain
of teacher leadership within program improvement schools could address questions that

159
guide inquiry about investigating the paths of leadership influence on student learning. This
inquiry could also examine the development or modification of university and professional
development programs that prepare and support principals and teachers in the work of
parallel leadership while maintaining a clear focus on program improvement schools.
Steps were taken to minimize the effects of the aforementioned limitations by using
qualitative methods to triangulate data. To ensure a high participation rate in the quantitative
phase of the study, the researcher conducted the survey in a regularly scheduled faculty
meeting.
Suggestions for Future Research
The following questions are offered as directions for future research:
1. How do program improvement secondary schools in other districts, either within the
state or out-of-state, support teacher leadership? Do these districts support
professional learning communities (PLCs) throughout their schools? How do these
PLCs function as communities of practice to influence student and teacher learning?
2. How do program improvement secondary schools implement PLCs that promote
teacher leadership?
3. To what extent and in what ways do university-sponsored teacher preparation
programs develop norms of practice that encourage teachers to lead effectively within
program improvement secondary schools?
4. Next, the following recommendations for future practice are made.
Recommendations for Future Practice
In a high-stakes accountability climate propelled by the ratification of the

160
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002),
schools are under pressure to produce student achievement results for all students. Based on
the study findings, the researcher offers recommendations for the future practice of teacher
leaders, principals, and district office administrators who are interested in promoting teacher
leadership and improving student achievement, including creating time for job-embedded
collaboration, institutionalizing professional learning communities, and changing
bureaucratic structures.
Creating Time for Collaboration
Finding time for job-embedded collaboration is essential if we are to accomplish the
development of teacher leadership in the schools that are low performing. The principal at
Ocean View High School provided all teachers with opportunities to lead, I try to provide an
environment that is non-threatening, open, and supportive of change. Creating an
environment where the teacher is always part of the solution, not part of the problem, is the
goal I continue to work toward. To facilitate this, I must focus on using time creatively so
that teachers can engage in this form of decision making. A major implication for teacher
leadership practice is to link this collaborative time to student learning and school
improvement goals.
Institutionalizing Professional Learning Communities
Institutionalizing professional learning communities (PLCs) or functional
communities of practice that promote autonomy and a willingness to implement best
practices for student and teacher learning is necessary for the improvement of struggling
schools. Teachers within these PLCs lead instructional initiatives that address student
achievement goals and quickly adapt to changes in instructional focus driven by student

161
need. Ongoing evaluation of PLCs will ensure that the processes for successful
implementation are followed with fidelity. Transforming a school culture to allow the
empowerment of teacher leaders is a challenging and complex task. However, this
transformation is needed if PLCs are to be the norm in program improvement schools.
Changing Bureaucratic Structures
Lastly, the bureaucratic structures in schools should change to allow curriculum
flexibility, incentives for leading, and more teacher leaders to be employed in program
improvement schools. If teachers are the schools most valuable resource, then the best
teachers should be teaching and leading in program improvement schools. Teacher contracts
need to be re-negotiated to reflect incentives for collaboration and teacher leadership, both
elements that deeply impact teacher practice, and therefore student learning.
Conclusions
This study began with a view of teacher leadership as a powerful strategy for
implementing school change. The findings from this study indicate that teacher leaders in
program improvement schools are change agents who mentor colleagues and lead schoolwide initiatives. Teacher leaders are active facilitators in professional learning communities
(PLCs) that engage in meaningful conversations about student learning and teacher practice.
PLCs, which permeated the study, reshape the traditional cultures of schools by breaking
down hierarchical structures of leadership, thus permitting teachers to lead from within their
classrooms. The ongoing collaboration essential for PLCs further promotes the roles of
teacher leadership.
Study findings and results underscore the important role the principal plays in
creating conditions for effective teacher leadership. The principal in this study led in parallel

162
fashion by sharing her decision-making power and enabled teachers to conduct purposeful
conversations about instructional practices and student achievement data. In this way, this
principal strived to become a leader of leaders. Along with maintaining and sustaining the
school vision, the principal promoted a collective commitment to attain student-centered
goals. This principal promoted teacher leadership in a program improvement secondary
school and understood that collaboration should be at the forefront of her agendas.
This mixed methods study revealed the importance of school culture, norms of
practice, teacher leader roles, and professional learning communities within a program
improvement high school. It heightened the awareness of parallel leadership and collegiality
as essential elements for active teacher leadership. Teachers leading from within their
classrooms of struggling learners revealed ways to promote the leadership of other teachers.
The researcher believes that he greatly benefited from this study. As a former
principal, he extended his knowledge about the theoretical underpinnings of teacher
leadership as it relates to improving school culture and implementing professional learning
communities that may improve student results. Teacher leaders and the principal of Ocean
View High provided valuable insights into the formation of new working relationships
through purposeful collaboration time. They also challenged the researchers thinking about
his own leadership practices as he leads and mentors principals in program improvement
secondary schools.
If, as Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) assert, teacher leadership provides the means to
cultivate an educational system grounded in excellence and equity, then principals and
district leaders are wise to reconsider the fundamental nature of school organizations. This
study suggests that teacher leaders play a primary role in improving struggling secondary

163
schools. As principals empower teachers to lead, they awaken a sleeping giant. When
principals work side by side with teacher leaders to establish new norms of practice, when
they encourage autonomous, yet accountable professional learning communities, they make
way for the classroom experts to improve teacher practice and student learning. Indeed,
findings from this study add to the growing body of evidence that suggests teachers, the most
valuable resources in schools, are the best hope for improving schools.

164
REFERENCES
Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2007). Using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how
experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning. The Qualitative
Report, 12(4), 612-638.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice increasing professional effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Behar-Horenstein, L.S., & Morgan, R. (1995). Narrative research, teaching, and teacher
thinking: Perspectives and possibilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 139161.
Birky, V. D. (2002). Perspectives of teacher leaders in an educational reform environment:
Finding meaning in their involvement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
Dissertation Abstracts International (63, 03A).
Bronson, H. (2007). Investigating teacher leadership as a means of building school capacity.
(PRO QUEST Document. Library and Archives, Canada, File No. 978-0-494-281062).
Bunting, C. (1998). Self-directed teacher growth: Helping it happen at schools. Schools in the
Middle, 8(1), 21-23.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1988). Teacher involvement in
decision-making: A state-by-state profile. Princeton, NJ: Author.

165
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.
Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12.
Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.
Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Copland, M. A. (2003). Building the capacity to lead: Promoting change in an inquiry-based
model of school reform. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership for school
reform: Lessons from comprehensive school reform designs. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Maietta, R. C. (2002). Qualitative research. In D. C. Miller & N. J.
Salkind (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design & Social Measurement (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crowther, F., Kaagen, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders:
How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.

166
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher
leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 96(1), 87-107.
Datnow, A., & Costellano, M. (2002). Leadership for school reform: Lessons from
comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Donaldson, G. A. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose,
and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dozier, T. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1),
54-58.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices
for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Durrant, J., & Holden, G. (2006). Teachers leading change: Doing research for school
improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eilers, A. M., & Camacho, A. (2007). School culture change in the making: Leadership
factors that matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616-637.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Retrieved from the Albert
Shanker Institute website: http://www.shankerinstitute.org
Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

167
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement in community School District #2, New York City.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. G. (1994). Teachers as leaders. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Education research: Competencies for analysis and
applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Goldman, P., Dunlap, D., & Conley, D. (1993). Facilitative power and nonstandardized
solutions to school site restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1),
69-92.
Hambleton, R. K., Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1988). Reading scale: Staff
member/manager rating form. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: Whats in it for schools? London, England: Falmer
Press.
Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255-65.
Hartnell-Young, E. (2006). Teachers roles and professional learning communities of
practice supported by technology in schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14(3), 461-480.

168
Hill, T., & Lewicki, P. (2006). Statistics methods and applications: A comprehensive
reference for science, industry, and data mining. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure
of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.
Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership.
Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8-13.
Katz, E. (1993). A critical analysis of interview, telephone, and mail survey designs. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers
develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
King, D. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-63.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A centurys quest to understand school leadership. In
K. S. Louis & J. Murphy (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration
(2nd ed., pp. 45-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Louis K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Liberman, A. (1992). Teachers as leaders: Evolving roles. Washington, DC: National
Educational Association.

169
Liberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phil Delta Kappan,
76(8), 591-596.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Unpublished manuscript.
Mangin, M. M. (2005). Distributed leadership and the culture of schools: Teacher leaders
strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 15(4), 456484.
Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals support for instructional teacher
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marsh, D. D. (Ed.). (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating
three essential perspectives. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp.
126-145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McClaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers workplace context. In J. W.
Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers work. Individuals, colleagues, and
contexts (pp. 55-76). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

170
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis
(2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (In)action: Three case studies of
contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1),
111-134.
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Natriello, G., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Challenges to an alternative route for teacher education.
In A. Liberman (Ed.). The changing contexts of teaching: Ninety-first yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education. (pp. 59-78). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Ogawa, R. T., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Adminstration Quarterly, 31, 224-243.
Ovando, M. N. (1996). Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Planning and
Changing, 27, 30-44.
Pankake, A., & Moller, G. (2007). What the teacher leader needs from the principal. National
Staff Development Council, 28(1), 32-36.
Patterson, J., & Patterson, J. (2004). Sharing the lead. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 74-78.
Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

171
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools.
Educational Leadership, 56(1), 28-30.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Prestine, N. A. (1991). Shared decision making in restructuring essential schools: The role of
the principal. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the University Council for
Educational Administration, Baltimore, MD.
Printy, S. M. (2002). Communities of practice: Participation patterns and professional
impact for high school mathematics and science teachers (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226.
Reeves, D. (2002). The leaders guide to standards: A blueprint for educational excellence.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to
planning writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational
design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-389.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

172
Sawyer, R. D. (2001). Teachers who grow as collaborative leaders: The rocky road of
support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(38), 1-20.
Scribner, J., Hager, D. R., & Warne, T. R. (2002). The paradox of professional community:
Tales from two high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 45-76.
Scribner, J., Sawyer R. K., Watson, S. T., & Meyers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Shelton, M. (1993). An analysis of readiness and willingness of high school teachers to
accept leadership roles (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation Abstracts
International. (54, 05A)
Shelton, M. A. L., Birky, V. D., & Headley, W. S. (2008). Encouraging teacher leaders. In
W.K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Improving schools: Studies in leadership and culture
(pp. 169-191). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Shelton, M., Birkey, G., & Headley, S. (2004). Site councils in Oregon high schools council
chairs views: A preliminary report. Unpublished manuscript presented to the Oregon
Department of Education.

173
Sherman, L. (2000). Sharing the lead. Retrieved from Northwest Education website:
http://www.nwrel.org.
Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102, 779-804.
Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership capacity. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 55-69.
Smith, T. M., & Rowley, K. J. (2005). Enhancing commitment or tightening control: The
function of teacher professional development in an era of accountability. Educational
Policy, 19(1), 126-154.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision-making: Assessing
willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 53-67.
Smylie, M. A., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals:
Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 28(2), 150-184.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sugar, W. A., & Warren, L. L. (2003). Promoting a teacher/leader-Designer perspective for
public school teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 25(3), 30-37.
Wasley, A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wellman, B., & Lipton, L. (2007). How to talk so teachers listen. Educational Leadership,
65(1), 30-34.

174
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings
from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

175
Appendix A
Survey Approval

176

177
Appendix B
TLS Survey

178

179

180

181
Appendix C
Demographic Information Sheet-Teachers
Teacher Leader
Demographic Sheet
Instructions: Please respond to the following questions. Your responses will provide background
information, which will allow the researcher to analyze data about teacher leader characteristics.
50. Educational Level (Mark all that apply)
A. Bachelor's Degree
B. Master's Degree
C. Doctoral Degree
51. What type of credential(s) do you currently hold? (Mark all that apply)
A. Single Subject
B. Administrative
C. Pupil Personnel
D. Special Education
E. Other
52. Number of years as a teacher:
A. 1-5 years
B. 6-10 years
C. 11-15 years
D. 16-20 years
E. Over 20 years
53. Number of years as a teacher at your current school:
A. 1-5 years
B. 6-10 years
C. 11-15 years
D. 16-20 years
E. Over 20 years
54. Please mark the teacher leader role(s) you have held during either of the
last two school years. (Mark all that apply)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Professional Learning Community (PLC) Leader

Department Chairperson
Faculty Advisory Committee Member
School Site Council Member
Academic Coach

55. I am a teacher at
A. Castle Park Middle School
B. Mar Vista Middle School

182
C. Castle Park High School
D. Mar Vista High School

183
Appendix D
Survey Script for PI Schools
Directions For Administering Social Processes Surveys
Surveys and pencils will be distributed to teachers present at the faculty meeting. Each
teacher will receive one survey and should complete one survey. Completing the survey
should only take about fifteen to twenty minutes.
The following statement will be read to the faculty:
The surveys you are about to complete are part of a study of secondary schools in
program improvement. This research concerns the prevalence of teacher leadership in
program improvement high schools, principals and teachers understanding of the roles and
functions of teacher leaders in program improvement high schools, and examines the ways
that principals challenge traditional norms of practice and structures to support ongoing
teacher leadership. The study attempts to investigate teacher leadership in low achieving
secondary schools as a possible means of building a culture of continuous improvement.
Teachers from several schools in southern California are being asked to complete this survey.
The results will help us to further develop the research on teacher leadership in program
improvement high schools. Additionally, most secondary school reform efforts urge schoolwide change through professional learning communities; therefore, it is important to
understand how school cultures support these communities of learning through teacher
leadership.
Sid Salazar, an assistant superintendent in charge of secondary schools in the San
Diego Unified School District, is conducting this research. All teachers responses are
anonymous. Data gathered about the school will be completely confidential. Data will be
compiled at the school level and will be used for a statistical analysis of the dimensions
characteristic of schools where teacher leadership is supported. We are not interested in
ranking or rating individual schools. You will be asked to complete a survey. The estimated
time to complete the survey is about fifteen to twenty minutes.
Your participation is voluntary. You may decline to complete the survey or you may
skip any item that you feel uncomfortable answering. The purpose of this research is to
gather information regarding the perceptions of teachers about their schools. There are no
correct or incorrect answers. The researchers are interested only in your frank opinion.
Your time, insights, and perceptions are valuable resources. Thank you for sharing them with
us! If you have any questions, you may reach Sid Salazar at San Diego Unified School
District, 619-725-7772. For questions related to your rights as a participant in research, you
may contact the Institutional Review Board at San Diego State University. (i.e. 619-5946622, irb@mail.sdsu.edu)

184
-----------------Only certified teachers who teach in the building at least half time should complete the
surveys. If other school personnel wish to complete the survey for their own purposes they
may, but collect those separately and make sure that they are clearly mark as Non-Teacher.

185
Appendix E
Consent Form Principal

San Diego State University

Consent to Act as a Research Subject: Principal
Teacher to Leader:
A Mixed Methods Approach to Investigating Teacher Leadership in Program
Improvement Secondary Schools
Sid Salazar, Doctoral Student

Hello,
You are being invited to participate in a study that investigates teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools as possible means of building a shared culture of continuous
improvement. This study is necessary because, while prior research tells us that teachers
rightly and importantly hold a central position in the core functions of teaching and learning,
traditional norms of practice held in many school cultures can impede the development of
teacher leadership. The researcher is an assistant superintendent who supervises secondary
schools in the San Diego Unified School District. The findings of the research will be used
to help develop school cultures that promote teacher leadership, particularly in program
improvement high schools. The research includes completing a survey, observations,
interviews, and focus groups.

The need for teacher leadership has been fueled by educational policies that pressure school
administrators to seek effective ways to increase student achievement. The high-stakes
testing environment associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has intensified this
pressure. The notion of teacher leadership as the pathway to reform has gained increased
acceptance as scholars and administrators recognized that teachers possess the primary

186
knowledge and expertise for improving instruction and student outcomes (Datnow &
Costellano, 2001; Elmore & Burney, 1997; Harris, 2005). Your school was identified to
participate in this study because it is a comprehensive secondary school in a large urban
district that is aiming to meet AYP benchmarks. I am particularly interested to know how
your school culture supports teacher leadership and how administrators understand the role
and functions of teacher leaders.

You will be asked to contribute to this study by participating in interviews relate your
schools culture as it promotes or inhibits teacher leadership. Your participation is voluntary
and there is no penalty if you choose not to participate or choose to discontinue participation.
The research involves minimal risk to the participants (less than or equal to that encountered
in daily life at school). Participants may experience the following difficulties, as follows:
Participants may feel uncomfortable talking about his/her feelings about the school
culture or may become tired or frustrated when trying to complete the assigned tasks.
If that should occur, you may discontinue participation, either temporarily or
permanently.
The researcher does not foresee any other discomforts or risks associated with this data
collection. There are no experimental variables and there is no compensation for
participation in this study.
Participants will have contributed to a study that could be of benefit to teachers, site
administrators, and district administrators as they address the challenges of achieving largescale reform plans. During your participation in this study, you may also learn about aspects
of your own leadership that can increase your own willingness to promote teacher leadership
within your school culture. Your name will be coded to match data collected. All names in
work published by the researchers will be pseudonyms. Interviews will be audiotaped and
transcribed. Quotes from the observations and interviews may be used for publication of
findings but no participant will be identified by name. Your participation will remain
confidential (this means that we will conceal your identity and only codes will be used on
interview forms and notes we take) except as required by law. The researcher does not
believe there are any conflicts of interest, and the participant does not waive any legal right
by participating in this study.
You may contact the researcher with questions by email (elcid37@cox.net) or phone (619213-8821). It is suggested that you keep a copy of this consent form for your records.

187
Participation in this study is voluntary. Your choice of whether or not to participate will not
influence your future relations with San Diego State University. If you decide to participate,
you are free to withdraw your consent and to stop your participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are allowed.
If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact the
Division of Research Administration at San Diego State University (telephone: 619-5946622; email: irb@mail.sdsu.edu).
The San Diego State University Institutional Review Board has approved this consent form,
as signified by the Boards stamps. The consent form must be reviewed annually and expires
on the date indicated on the stamps.
Your signature below indicates that you have read the information in this document and have
had a chance to ask any questions you have about the study. Your signature also indicates
that you agree to be in the study and have been told that you can change your mind and
withdraw your consent to participate at any time. Your signature also indicates that you
consent to the use of audiotapes and understand how the tapes will be used for this study.
You have been given a copy of this consent form. You have also been given a copy of "The
Research Participant's Bill of Rights." You have been told that by signing this consent form
you are not giving up any of your legal rights.
Name of Participant (please print)__________________________________________

_________________________________________
Signature of Participant

_______________
Date

188
Appendix F
Consent Form Teacher Leader

San Diego State University

Consent to Act as a Research Subject: Teacher Leader
Teacher to Leader:
A Mixed Methods Approach to Investigating Teacher Leadership in Program
Improvement Secondary Schools
Sid Salazar, Doctoral Student

Hello,
You are being invited to participate in a study that investigates teacher leadership in program
improvement secondary schools as possible means of building a shared culture of continuous
improvement. This study is necessary because, while prior research tells us that teachers
rightly and importantly hold a central position in the core functions of teaching and learning,
traditional norms of practice held in many school cultures can impede the development of
teacher leadership. The researcher is an assistant superintendent who supervises secondary
schools in the San Diego Unified School District. The findings of the research will be used
to help develop school cultures that promote teacher leadership, particularly in program
improvement high schools. The research includes completing a survey, observations,
interviews, and focus groups.

The need for teacher leadership has been fueled by educational policies that pressure school
administrators to seek effective ways to increase student achievement. The high-stakes
testing environment associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has intensified this
pressure. The notion of teacher leadership as the pathway to reform has gained increased
acceptance as scholars and administrators recognized that teachers possess the primary

189
knowledge and expertise for improving instruction and student outcomes (Datnow &
Costellano, 2001; Elmore & Burney, 1997; Harris, 2005). Your school was identified to
participate in this study because it is a comprehensive secondary school in a large urban
district that is aiming to meet AYP benchmarks. I am particularly interested to know how
your school culture supports teacher leadership and how administrators understand the role
and functions of teacher leaders.
You will be asked to contribute to this study by participating in interviews, observations, and
focus group meetings for teacher leaders. Your participation is voluntary and there is no
penalty if you choose not to participate or choose to discontinue participation. The research
involves minimal risk to the participants (less than or equal to that encountered in daily life at
school). Participants may experience the following difficulties, as follows:
Participants may feel uncomfortable talking about his/her feelings about the school
culture or may become tired or frustrated when trying to complete the assigned tasks.
If that should occur, you may discontinue participation, either temporarily or
permanently.
The researcher does not foresee any other discomforts or risks associated with this data
collection. There are no experimental variables and there is no compensation for
participation in this study.
Participants will have contributed to a study that could be of benefit to teachers, site
administrators, and district administrators as they address the challenges of achieving largescale reform plans. During your participation in this study, you may also learn about aspects
of your own leadership as a teacher and extend your support for other teacher leaders in your
school. Your name will be coded to match data collected. All names in work published by
the researchers will be pseudonyms. Interviews will be audiotaped and transcribed. Quotes
from the observations and interviews may be used for publication of findings but no
participant will be identified by name. Your participation will remain confidential (this
means that we will conceal your identity and only codes will be used on interview forms and
notes we take) except as required by law. The researcher does not believe there are any
conflicts of interest, and the participant does not waive any legal right by participating in this
study.
You may contact the researcher with questions by email (elcid37@cox.net) or phone (619213-8821). It is suggested that you keep a copy of this consent form for your records.
Participation in this study is voluntary. Your choice of whether or not to participate will not
influence your future relations with San Diego State University. If you decide to participate,

190
you are free to withdraw your consent and to stop your participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are allowed.
If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact the
Division of Research Administration at San Diego State University (telephone: 619-5946622; email: irb@mail.sdsu.edu).
The San Diego State University Institutional Review Board has approved this consent form,
as signified by the Boards stamps. The consent form must be reviewed annually and expires
on the date indicated on the stamps.
Your signature below indicates that you have read the information in this document and have
had a chance to ask any questions you have about the study. Your signature also indicates
that you agree to be in the study and have been told that you can change your mind and
withdraw your consent to participate at any time. Your signature also indicates that you
consent to the use of audiotapes and understand how the tapes will be used for this study.
You have been given a copy of this consent form. You have also been given a copy of "The
Research Participant's Bill of Rights." You have been told that by signing this consent form
you are not giving up any of your legal rights.
Name of Participant (please print)__________________________________________

_________________________________________
Signature of Participant

_______________
Date

191
Appendix G
Teacher Interview Protocol
Teacher Interview Guide
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today, and thank you for allowing me to conduct this
study of teacher leadership as a possible means of continuous improvement at your school.
Traditional leadership approaches no longer meet the current demands of school reform.
Information-age technology, diverse student populations, and increasing external mandates
push the concept of teacher leadership to the forefront of the educational landscape. In fact,
a growing body of research provides evidence to a link between teacher leadership and
positive results with school reform efforts. Less is known, however, about prevalence and
impact of teacher leadership in program improvement high schools. This study attempts to
understand the specific norms, habits, and structures that support or inhibit the development
of teacher leaders in program improvement secondary schools, as well as their impact on
student achievement.
Im going to ask you some open-ended questions about how teacher leadership can be a
strong catalyst for change in current school reform movements. Your comments will be kept
confidential. By sharing your experiences, you will help us better understand the roles and
functions of teacher leaders in your school and help me examine ways in which effective
principals incorporate or challenge norms and structures to provide opportunities and
supports for active, ongoing teacher leadership.
Id like to ask your permission to tape record our interview. The tape will help us more
accurately represent your ideas and views. The contents will only be shared with members of
the research team. Comments from the tape used in reporting study results will be shared in
a way that protects your confidentiality.

A. Research Question: How do administrators and teachers in persistently underperforming secondary schools, labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and
functions of teacher leaders?
Interview Questions
A1: Are you an active member of governance groups at your site? If so, please name and
describe these groups.
Probes: self-motivated or recruited or voted in
A2: Describe the roles you have at your school.
Probes: informal or formal roles, non-traditional roles, self-initiative

192
A3: Prioritize the aforementioned roles in order of your commitment to them, with high
priority roles listed first.
A4: Re-prioritize the roles you have at your school in order of their greatest impact on
student achievement.
A5: Did you prioritize your roles differently in items three and four? If so, please explain.

B. Research Question: To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume

leadership roles in program improvement secondary schools?
Interview Questions
B1: The following teacher leaders were selected by your principal to be part of this case
study: (names of the teachers). All the teacher leaders will be asked to part of a focus group,
which will meet several times throughout the study. Are there teacher leaders, which you
feel need to be included in the study that were not identified initially? I am defining teacher
leaders as a teacher who has the ability to effectively collaborate with colleagues for the
purposes of influencing change, increasing teacher expertise, and improving student and
teacher learning. If so, please identify these teachers.
B2: How did you get involved in leadership roles in your school?
Probes: requested by an administrator, self-initiate
B3: Do you experience shared leadership within your school? If so, what elements make
you feel this way? If not, what elements prohibit you from experiencing a shared leadership
culture?
B4: As a teacher leader, describe the types of conversations you have with colleagues? With
administrators?
C. Research Question: What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within
program improvement secondary schools?
Interview Questions
(Developmental Focus)
C1: What types of professional development activities do engage in? What roles do you
play in these activities?
C2: Describe instances where you have taken risks in trying new techniques or ideas that
help to improve your practice or the teaching practice of others? Have any of these
techniques or ideas addressed or improved student learning? If so, how?

193

C3: How does your principal support professional development in your school?
C4: How does our principal support your risk-taking and leading initiatives within your
school?
Probes: types of initiatives
C5: Describe the learning environment for teachers at your site.
(Recognition)
C6: Describe teacher recognition that occurs in your school. Does this recognition occur
often? Who is recognized and for what reasons?
C7: What are your thoughts and feelings about teacher recognition?
(Autonomy)
C8: How are you encouraged to try new ways to improve teaching and learning at your
school?
C9: How have you contributed to building the schools vision?
Probes: process, involvement, teacher-driven
C10: Describe an improvement or initiative that you spearheaded in your school.
Probes: type of innovation, student-oriented, tied to achievement
(Collegiality)
Recall a meeting when
C11: you reviewed student achievement data? Who was involved in these meetings? Who
led these efforts?
C12: you had opportunities to collaborate with your colleagues? Describe these
experiences.
C13: you influenced others on your staff: Other teachers? Other administrators?
Probes: site level, district level, teacher observations, discussions about student
achievement
(Participation)
C14: Describe a faculty meeting when significant learning took place. (Other meetings such
as department meetings, and instructional leadership team meetings)

194
C15: Tell me about a time when you had an opportunity to model leadership within your
school.
C16: How would your respond to someone who said to you, Its the principals job to lead,
and the teachers job to teach?
(Open Communication)
C17: What kinds of evidence are used to inform decisions about instructional focus and
teaching practices in your school?
C18: Id like you to recall a conversation you had with other teachers about their
classroom/teaching situations and specific challenges they face?
Probes: reflective dialog about their teaching practice and student achievement
C19: Is there a structured plan for peer observations in your school? Who coordinates these
observations? Please describe the peer observation plan.
C20: How is a safe environment developed and ensured to encourage effective learningbased dialogs to occur?
Probes: framing conversations, clear focus on data, trust, areas where teachers are
making a difference
(Positive Environment)
C21: What kinds of actions demonstrate that teachers at your school believe that all students
can learn at reasonably high levels and that teachers can help them?
C22: Describe how teachers are honored for their expertise and contributions to your school.
C23: Describe experiences in your school that depict shared responsibilities and shared
leadership among teachers and administrators.
C24: Describe opportunities for you to engage in activities as a team where authority and
resources are shared.
C25: In your role as a teacher, how would you describe your school?
C26: In your role a teacher leader, how would you describe your school?
C27: Why do you think teachers take on leadership roles in your school?
C28: What factors might encourage or discourage teachers from assuming leadership roles in
your school?

195
Appendix H
Principal Interview Protocol
Principal Interview Guide
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today, and thank you for allowing me to conduct this
study of teacher leadership as a possible means of continuous improvement at your school.
Traditional leadership approaches no longer meet the current demands of school reform.
Information-age technology, diverse student populations, and increasing external mandates
push the concept of teacher leadership to the forefront of the educational landscape. In fact,
a growing body of research provides evidence to a link between teacher leadership and
positive results with school reform efforts. Less is known, however, about prevalence and
impact of teacher leadership in program improvement high schools. This study attempts to
understand the specific norms, habits, and structures that support or inhibit the development
of teacher leaders in program improvement high schools, as well as their impact on student
achievement.
Im going to ask you some open-ended questions about how teacher leadership can be a
strong catalyst for change in current school reform movements. Your comments will be kept
confidential. By sharing your experiences, you will help us better understand the roles and
functions of teacher leaders in your school and help me examine ways in which effective
principals incorporate or challenge norms and structures to provide opportunities and
supports for active, ongoing teacher leadership.
Id like to ask your permission to tape record our interview. The tape will help us more
accurately represent your ideas and views. The contents will only be shared with my
dissertation committee chair. Comments from the tape used in reporting study results will
be shared in a way that protects your confidentiality.
Do I have your permission? May I begin?
A. Research Question: How do administrators and teachers in persistently underperforming secondary schools, labeled as program improvement, perceive the roles and
functions of teacher leaders?
Interview Questions
A1: Using the following definition of a teacher leader, please list all the teacher leaders in
your school. A teacher leader is one who has the ability to effectively collaborate with
colleagues for the purposes of influencing change, increasing teacher expertise, and
improving student and teacher learning.
A2: Based on your list of teachers, what kinds of roles do these teachers perform?
Probes: formal or informal, non-traditional roles, appointed or volunteered

196

A3: What kinds of tasks do you delegate to your teacher leaders?

Probes: delegate or self-initiate, instructional or non-instructional tasks
B. Research Question: To what degree and in what ways do teachers assume
leadership roles in program improvement secondary schools?
Interview Questions
B1: How do you provide opportunities for leadership at your school?
B2: How do teachers know that they can assume leadership positions at your school?
Probes: formal or informal, actual ways in which the principal sets structures, apply
or volunteer?
B3: How is your message about shared/parallel leadership delivered? Individually?
Group? If it is a public message in a meeting, how was your message received?
Probes: requests or due to need
B4: Describe the leadership roles of teachers at your school.
Probes: check for first, second, or third order wave roles, specific actions
B5: Describe the types of conversations that you have with teacher leaders at your site.
Probes: initiatives that impact student achievement, instructional practice, quasiadministrative duties

C. Research Question: What conditions support or inhibit teacher leadership within

program improvement secondary schools?
Interview Questions
(Developmental Focus)
C1: Describe the types of professional development activities available for your teachers.
Do you coordinate or conduct these activities? Why or why not?
C2: How do you provide opportunities for teachers to take risks in trying new techniques or
ideas and make efforts to improve their practice and student learning?
(Recognition)
C3: How do you recognize teachers who are helping move the school forward or are making
a difference in student learning?
Probes: check for formal, ongoing recognition structures/processes,

197

C4: What are teachers reactions to this recognition?

Probes: authenticity, recognition by other teachers and administrators
C5: Describe your recognition programs.
Probes: who gets recognized, timeliness,
(Autonomy)
C6: How do you encourage teachers to try new ways to improve teaching and learning at
your school?
C7: How do you establish the vision for the school?
Probes: process, teachers and other stakeholders are involved
C8: Describe a situation in your school that describes a teacher-initiated improvement or
innovation.
Probes: type of innovation, student-oriented, tied to achievement
(Collegiality)
C9: Describe collaborative activities in your school where teachers work with teachers or
where teachers work with other staff, including administrators.
Probes: instructional leadership, collaborative style, affirmation of teacher work,
goal-setting, types of conversations
C10: How do teacher leaders influence others on your staff? Other teachers? Other
administrators?
Probes: site level, district level, teacher observations, discussions about students
C11: How do you establish effective collaborative activities in your school?
Probes: focused conversations (student-oriented), trust-building, transparency, shared
practices, structured times to collaborate
C12: How do you keep the school focused shared purpose, continuous improvement, and
collaboration?
(Participation)
C13: What processes do you use to make decisions at your school?
C14: How are teachers involved in making decisions at your school?
Probes: consensus process, how instructional time is used, how the school is
organized

198
C15: Describe instances when you have solicited help from teachers to make school
decisions?
Probes: teachers have the authority to make decisions, feel free to make choices
(Open Communication)
C16: Do teachers or other staff talk about their situations and specific challenges they face?
If so, please describe these dialogs.
Probes: reflective dialog about their teaching practice and student achievement
C17: How often do teachers observe each others teaching? Who coordinates these
observations? Is there a structured plan for observations? If so, please describe this plan.
C18: How is a safe environment developed and ensured to encourage effective learningbased dialogs?
Probes: framing conversations, clear focus on data, trust, areas where teachers are
making a difference
(Positive Environment)
C19: What kinds of actions demonstrate that teachers at your school believe that all students
can learn at reasonably high levels and that teachers can help them?
C20: Describe how teachers are honored for their expertise and contributions to your school.
C21: Describe how the teachers in your staff function together as a team.
Probes: general satisfaction with the work environment, willingly participate in
activities, people are making a difference

199
Appendix I
Observation Protocol Guide

Observation Protocol Guide

Provide a descriptive narrative of the meeting. Include the following information, as
available:
The stated purpose of the meeting
Number of participants expected, present; number late to meeting; absent
The actual start and end times of the meeting
Materials distributed at the meeting
Describe how participants led group work. Were there attempts to include all participants
with maximum collaboration? What were the topics on the agenda? Did the topics explicitly
address student achievement? Were multiple data elements that measure student
achievement included in the conversation? If budgets were discussed, were they aligned to
student achievement, directly or indirectly? How receptive were others to the opinions of
teacher leaders? Were the roles of teacher leaders defined and obvious to the observer? Was
there evidence of effective communication among group members? If not, what were the
obstacles?

A data collection form is included.

200
Appendix J
Observational Protocol Reporting Form
Demographic information (date, time, place, district)

Topic/Meeting

Descriptive Notes

Reflective Notes

201
Appendix K
Triangulation of Multiple Data Collection
Triangulation of Multiple Data Collection Methods Using Common Themes
Developmental Focus
Principal
The teacher leaders attended the session to receive a message that would then be
conveyed by them to the staff at-large.
Assigned Mr. Garcia to create incentives to that connect students to school and
improve their attendance.
The work of the PLC development was strongly supported by the district office.
The district office offered PLC development training and oftentimes covered teacher
substitute costs.
Ms. Smith
Used new techniques that made a difference in classes-QTEL, AVID, note taking
District professional development and support-QTEL/AVID
Modeling strategies for peers such as QTEL
During PLC meetings- demonstrated strategies for successfully teaching rational
expressions
Mr. Davis
PLC modeling
Involved in NCTM
embracing new ideas/strategies-SMART boards
Providing instructionally focused trainings/workshops, leadership opportunities
Faculty meetings not used for this purpose instead in-house experts provide in-service
on block scheduling, SMART boards, critical reading
Mr. Garcia
In PLCs, we learn strategies to implement in classes, classroom organization is
critical in art classes due to class size
cross-curricular project that combines reading, art, and history.
Talks to colleagues about the different ways students learn.
To develop leadership capacity and help peers, share knowledge.
Ms. House
Innovations and suggestions for change
curtail complaining, whining, backbiting and discuss sensitive issues such as D/F
grades, develop common rules

202
PLC 2
Clarifying and enhancing common formative assessment (CFA) #4
Finalizing common formative assessment (CFA) #4
Assessment- reviewing rubric scores
Recognition
Ms. Smith
Administrators- talk about change, their faith in teachers
Staff members recognized at every faculty meeting- teacher of the year, coaches
Must be done-keeps morale up
Encouraged to be PLC leaders and acknowledged by the staff at large
FAC, SLC, FAC (governance)
Mr. Davis
Kudos at faculty meetings; announcement of awards, prizes, positive happenings
Less formal than before
Recognition at monthly faculty meetings. Teacher of the Year Award. Staff Member
of the Year Award.
Excellent school but under-appreciated. Almost out of PI but struggle with the
achievement of ELs.
Mr. Garcia
Very supportive, motivates to learn and improve,
Nominate teacher of the year
Is part of our culture. Current principal recognizes, acknowledges, and attends art
events.
Luncheons. Teacher Appreciation Day. Coordinated a letter campaign written in
calligraphy to honor teachers.
Ms. Thomas
Colleagues- voice concern for each others wellbeing; discuss barriers to reaching the
mission and goals of the school;
Kudos during faculty meetings, Teacher of the Year, recognize accomplishments
Ms. House
Needs to happen more. Its a good thing and should be common practice and routine.
Recognition both formally and informally
Attitude is were all in this together.Administration recognizes the challenging
work of teachers.
Teachers are professionals who are willing to do what is necessary to accomplish the
job.
Encourage- intrinsic rewards for leading, positive changes for the school.
Ms. House

203

Comes from within and staff working together in intense situations.

Needed, and will continue to evolve as the new principal acculturates to the school
community.
Teacher of the Year
Autonomy

Principal
Ms. Thomas is a tenured teacher who is the social science department chairperson.
She is a National Board Certified teacher and District Teacher of the Year.
At times, she would encourage teachers to assume leadership roles as she conducted
classroom observations.
Through PLC meetings times, teachers were able to meet and safely talk about their
teaching challenges.
Mr. Garcia
Drew a ground mural on the asphalt involved all art students and art dept. Helps
students work with others, unites cultures
Ms. Thomas
Willing to support new strategies and is willing to experiment as long as ideas are
research-based
Ms. House
Motivated by the assistant principal who is the heart and soul of the school
Administrators- taking risks with innovations; acquiring support and professional
development
Collegiality
Principal
Some of the roles performed by PLC leaders are working collaboratively to sustain a
student achievement focus, creating common formative assessments, developing
common lesson plans, and working through content specific issues.
The credit recovery program was originally controlled by the resource teachers
funded by the Categorical Office, which coordinates Title I monies, state fund, and
other grants.
Additional district-sponsored workshops addressing the change process such as the
training with Anthony Mohammed strongly supported PLCs and other change
initiatives within the school.
Ms. Smith
Used new techniques that made a difference in classes-QTEL, AVID, note taking
Reinforcing key elements-communicate, collaborate, critically think

204

Developing common lessons, deciding on homework assignments, collaborating

positively
Data results-common formative assessments, CAHSEE, CSTs
During WASC-collegial/non-threatening; not occurring this year
Able to provide suggestions, develop effective collaboration and trust, share an
intrinsic desire to improve
Collegiality, commitment, and welcome change
Encourage-collaboration, improving teacher practice, collective
responsibility/commitment

Mr. Davis
Peer observations, mentoring, modeling
PLCs discussed best practices and how to use quarterly exam results to re-teach
In PLC using Data Director information and prepped for district quarterly exams
Provided input at PLC meeting about quarterly exams
At PLCs, teachers are negative about students not learning a concept- suggested
alternative techniques
Safe for dialog. Must also communicate with students and inform them how to be
successful
Mr. Garcia
The administration led discussion of test scores- compared grade levels, identified
strengths/weaknesses
We collaborated effectively when we drew the mural
Worked with a teacher who shared half of his students from one class. Collaborated
and discussed ways to help struggling students- academically (not necessarily in Art)
and behaviorally.
Yes, its safe to dialog. Approach the dialog in a suggestive manner not directive
Ms. Thomas
Completing the process for the National Board Certification- incorporating new
strategies,videotaping, shared ideas with colleagues.
Provides professional development of her own since we are in PI status. Encourages
attendance at other pd activities-SEI, QTEL, school culture.
Peer-driven: ELA teachers shared their process for developing a rubric and
annotations of reading. Its part of the culture to share ideas.
PLC reviewing common formative assessment results and trends. Meetings are
collaborative and led by PLC leader.
Collaborate at all dept. meetings and PLCs- discuss strategies and best practices
Cheerleader for new policies that impact teaching- grading, assignments.
Faculty meetings are used for operational items. PLCs address peer-driven instruction
and modeling strategies. Minimum days are used for PLCs.
Sharing the process of National Board Certification process, modeling reflection of
own practice with peers.

205

Assessments- CST, CAHSEE, common formative assessments (district and site),

encourage informal assessments
Being diplomatic when making suggestions to peers. Some may be defensive at first.
After time, trust and rapport will develop.
PLCs are productive and teachers share best practices.
Ms. House
Liaison between staff and admin
Intensifying teaching methodologies in Advanced Placement courses
Guided by the site plan and WASC recommendations.
Conversations about data in PLCs allow to teachers to reflect on their practice and
commit to re-teaching unmastered standards.
Encouraged to attain mastery of the standards through meaningful, focused
instruction. Study all assessment data through PLCs.
Worked with the FAC and SLT to create and eventually with district guidance as the
district strategic plan was developed.
Discussed D/F grades in PLCs. Teachers interpreted their results and developed a
plan for improvement.
Learning goals and targets, student interventions, and policies are presented at faculty
meetings.
On the WASC team as a facilitator and writer.
Alignment of instructional goals and site plan. Always guided by student achievement
data.
Discuss options with students and make academic demands. Teachers must know that
failure is not option along with their failing students.
Usually a safe environment for dialoging but new or probationary teachers are
nervous about layoffs.
Advanced Placement courses with an open-door policy. All students can access the
most rigorous curriculum.
A challenged learning community focused on high achievement goals. Challenged by
social issues and lack of skills.

PLC 1

All participated in the discussion and asked questions.

Addressed learning targets for world languages students
Academic language
Test setting protocol
Cornell Notes across content areas
Infusing technology to assist with Advanced Placement courses
Saturday Seminars
Chunking instruction
Reviewed action work from the previous meeting
Use of Power Teacher vs. Grade quick to monitor student progress and enter
grades

206
PLC 2

PLC 3

PLC 4

All participated and made group decisions

High- all members were active participants
Reviewed Content Standard Test (CST) questions in Algebra 2
Developed quiz for Intermediate Algebra
Reviewed test items to ensure they are aligned to standards
Developed two forms of a test in Prob./Stats Unit

High- all members participated

Discussed D/F ratios
Learning contracts for struggling students
Resurrected the discussion about the Cornell/Star exchange

Participation
Principal
She leads the Intermediate Algebra PLC, teaches credit recovery for struggling
students, and in the past advised the hip-hop student dance group.
He has coordinated the after school and Saturday math-tutoring program since its
inception with no compensation.
Ms. Thomas is also a superb negotiator when conducting difficult conversations with
students and staff.
the site governance team.
She affirmed that there are teacher leaders on all the PLCs
As PLC leaders and members, teachers discussed the modification of lessons,
changes in instructional approaches, and discussed school-wide instructional issues
such as literacy.
She stated, We need to bring teachers together to try new ways of improving their
teaching and student learning.

Mr. Davis
Administrators- constant conversations especially with the new principal, wants
suggestions from everyone about how to improve the school, solicits input and
provides support to improve the school.
Assisted with the hiring/interviewing process, pushing ideas, increased the number of
risk takers in the dept.
Mr. Garcia
Always talking on the students behalf, doing what is best for students.

207
Ms. Thomas
By volunteering for leadership roles among her colleagues-dept. chair
National Board Certification
Ms. House
Encouraged to participate and make a difference
Expressed willingness to work with the new principal and be supportive and
collaborative. This action positively changed the direction of the meeting.
In PLCs everyone has a voice. Also share authority in dept. meetings
PLC 1

All participated in the discussion and asked questions

Addressed learning targets for world languages students
Academic language
Test setting protocol
Cornell Notes across content areas
Infusing technology to assist with Advanced Placement courses
Saturday Seminars
Chunking instruction

PLC 2
All participated and made group decisions
Discussing quarterly exams
Reviewing instructional strategies such as charting
PLC 3

PLC 4

High- all members were active participants

Reviewed Content Standard Test (CST) questions in Algebra 2
Developed quiz for Intermediate Algebra
Reviewed test items to ensure they are aligned to standards
Developed two forms of a test in Prob./Stats Unit
Reviewed action work from the previous meeting
Use of Power Teacher vs. Grade quick to monitor student progress and enter
grades

High- all members participated

Discussed D/F ratios
Learning contracts for struggling students
Resurrected the discussion about the Cornell/Star exchange

208
Open Communication
Principal
There was a concerted effort to expand the scope of influence by including teachers
who were leading from within the classroom.
She saw her role as making sure that the classroom teacher is a voice in leadership.
The principal also saw her role as supporting the right work of the PLCS and
teacher leaders.
Ms. Smith
Classroom teacher
Co-teacher
Duties as PLC leader
Positive, open-minded, not too much hostility, supportive of new ideas
Mr. Davis
Influence in department
Meetings such as CIA in district
Leadership workshops
Communicating current realities- discussed results of quarterly exams in PLCs.
Discussion with no finger-pointing
Mr. Garcia
get into small groups to discuss instructional strategies (school-wide)
Filled in for an FAC member- everyone engaged in meaningful discussion- a sense of
shared leadership.
Its an opinion. Must demonstrate a united front-we are all in it together.
Ms. Thomas
Inspired by the WASC process- collaborative approach FAC and then out to the
faculty.
Discussed ways to motivate students to do better such as attend school regularly,
complete homework. Make teachers feel that these are within their control.
Ms. House
Committed to colleagues-support/human element
PLC
15 PLCs throughout the school year with additional content pullout days. Everyone
has an opportunity to facilitate in a collaborative approach.

PLC 1
High
Teacher leader led throughout the meeting but allowed for ongoing collaboration

209

High and ongoing- no one hesitated to voice their opinions

PLC 2
High- teachers working together with the teacher leaders
Obvious- teacher leaders encouraged input and was inclusive of other group members
Collegial- a mindset of working together to accomplish goals
PLC 3
High- often times deference was made to a senior member of the PLC
In depth discussion, dynamic conversation, all members were active participants
PLC 4
High
PLC leader facilitated the discussion; other members saw her as the leader, facilitator,
implementer
Collegial, collaborative, everyone had an opportunity to contribute
Positive Environment
Principal
All five teacher leaders have great connection with students and staff. The principal
touted, All of these people that I have identified take the classroom and extend it.
They connect with kids outside of classroom time. As teacher leaders, each one of
the people I identified takes their content area a step further.
The principal was beginning to develop a transparent process that allowed teachers to
apply or volunteer for leadership roles.
Teacher leaders within the PLCs helped to dispel the perpetuated myth and
organized their discussions around student achievement data and their teaching
practice.
Ms. Smith
Support for PLC leaders
Staff committed to serving low SES students who are often ELs
Mr. Davis
Mr. Garcia
Very supportive, motivates to learn and improve, get into small groups to discuss
instructional strategies (school-wide)
Ms. House
Encouraged by the former principal who is her mentor
Discouraging- lack of focus by the administration due to constant changes in
personnel (teachers and administrators)

210
PLC 2
Tense mood due to teacher layoffs
PLC 3
Tense mood due to teacher layoffs. Leader had been given a layoff notice which was
later rescinded.
Bold = overlapping themes

211
Appendix L
Codes: Roles and Functions

Co-teaching
Show best practices

PLC leader

Tutoring
Family Math helping to
get out of PI

Influence in department
Meetings such as CIA in
district
Leadership workshops

Teacher B

Teacher A

Question

Liaison for
Anime
Organized Art
teachers in
District
Showcases
student talent
throughout
district

PLC for Arts

Teacher C

Liaison between
admin, district,
dept
Coordinate PLC
members

Dept Chair
PLC leader

Teacher D

Liaison between
staff and admin
Master
scheduling
WASC planning
Site leadership
team
PLC leadershipuse data analysis
to review student
achievement in
content areas
Innovations and
suggestions for
change
Review
comprehensive
site plan

FAC/SLT
Dept Chair
PLC leader
Site Council

Teacher E

212

Impact other
teachers
Widen scope of
influence
Prioritized
differently

Duties as PLC
leader
Teacher
Co-teacher

Classroom teacher
Co-teacher
Duties as PLC
leader

Involved in NCTM
Prioritized differently

PLC modeling
Questioning why learned
in one class and not other
Change in philosophy

Out of sage on the

stage, back to guide by
the side
Conducted studies
Not give up; keep trying
Immediate feedback
guides teaching
Peer observations,
mentoring, modeling

Students always
first (Prioritized
the same)

Students
Anime Club
District Arts
liaison

Talk to students
Anime Club
District Arts
liaison

Students
Curriculum and
Instruction
PLC
(Always look at
results)

Students
Curriculum and
instruction
PLC

Prioritized the same

Committed to
colleaguessupport/human
element
PLC
SLT
FAC
SST

Committed to
colleaguessupport/human
element
PLC
SLT
FAC
SST

Prioritized the same

213

214
Appendix M
Codes: Leadership Roles

Yes- in PLCs, within

the co-teaching model

Colleagues- how to
increase student
achievement,
strategies to work
with resistant
teachers, thinking
outside-of-thebox, not hitting
colleagues over the
head with
information

Chip Case, Katrina,

Courtney Van Hale,
Erin Ashley
Encouraged by a
colleague

Teacher A

Question

Yes- as co-chairs within a

dept.
However, traditionalists are
verbal, resist change and
dont want to try new things
Colleagues- D/F grades
in courses, influence
peers to address D/F
grades within PLCs,
shared preps, or teaching
teams
Administrators- constant
conversations especially
with the new principal,
wants suggestions from
everyone about how to

Nick Nickoloff ( most senior

teacher), Mr. Peterson, Dr.
Cole
Influenced by non-traditional
teachers when he arrived at
the school in 1986- wanted
to experiment and try new
things

Teacher B

Colleagues- how
to improve the
school
Administratorsalerting admin
when there is a
potential student
problem which
promotes school
safety

Yes- as cross-content
team teachers

By demonstrating a
strong connection
with students and
promoting Art
throughout the
campus and district

No recommendations

Teacher C

Colleaguesdiscuss concerns
and solutions for
students who
have trouble
achieving
mastery; help
each other to get
desired student
achievement
results

Yes- in PLCs

Colleaguesvoice concern
for each others
wellbeing;
discuss barriers
to reaching the
mission and
goals of the
school; curtail
complaining,
whining,

Encouraged by
the former
principal who is
her mentor
Motivated by the
assistant principal
who is the heart
and soul of the
school
Yes- PLCs, FAC
(governance)

By volunteering
for leadership
roles among her
colleagues-dept.
chair
National Board
Certification

Bill Olinger, Filemon

Jara, Nick Nickoloff

Teacher E

No recommendations

Teacher D

215

Administrators- talk
about change, their
faith in teachers

improve the school,

solicits input and
provides support to
improve the school.

Administratorsdiscuss concerns
and solutions for
students who
have trouble
achieving
mastery; help
each other to get
desired student
achievement
results

backbiting and
discuss sensitive
issues such as
D/F grades,
develop common
rules
Administratorstaking risks with
innovations;
acquiring support
and professional
development

216

217
Appendix N
Codes: Supports and Hindrances

Teacher A

PLCs every 2 weeks with

a school-wide focus

Used new techniques that

made a difference in
classes-QTEL, AVID,
note taking

Through scheduled PLC

time and providing
guidance of PLCs

Question

Providing instructionally
focused
trainings/workshops,
leadership opportunities

Contributing during
PLCs; embracing new
ideas/strategies-SMART
boards

Dept. meetings, selfmotivated learning

Teacher B

Drew a ground mural

on the asphalt
involved all art
students and art dept.
Helps students work
with others, unites
cultures
Very supportive,
motivates to learn
and improve, get into
small groups to
discuss instructional
strategies (schoolwide)

Classes outside the

district, researchbased strategies with
principal

Teacher C
Recently, district-driven
professional
development
representing the
department or PLC.
Relay information to
dept. or team members,
sometimes deliver pd
such as backwards
design and incorporation
of standards in lesson
design.
Completing the process
for the National Board
Certificationincorporating new
strategies, videotaping,
shared ideas with
colleagues.
Provides professional
development of her own
since we are in PI status.
Encourages attendance
at other pd activitiesSEI, QTEL, school
culture.

Teacher D

Encouraged to
participate and
make a difference.

Intensifying
teaching
methodologies in
Advanced
Placement courses

School-widecritical literacy,
matching
achievement results
with site/district
strategic plans.

Teacher E

218

Kudos at faculty
meetings; announcement
of awards, prizes,
positive happenings
Less formal than before

Staff members recognized

at every faculty meetingteacher of the year,
coaches
Must be done-keeps
morale up

Wants positive
achievement results but
is willing to experiment;
District dictates
initiatives-principal
unwilling to take risks
that deviate from
district initiatives
Positive, open-minded, not Meet in PLCs or
too much hostility,
common preps to discuss
supportive of new ideas
troubled areas or
common formative
assessments

Support for PLC leaders

Is part of our culture.

Current principal
recognizes,
acknowledges, and
attends art events.

Nominate teacher of
the year

In PLCs, we learn
strategies to
implement in classes,
classroom
organization is
critical in art classes
due to class size

Current principal is
into the arts, supports
ideas, collective
vision for promoting
art throughout the
school.

Kudos during faculty

meetings, Teacher of the
Year, recognize
accomplishments
Needs to happen more.
Its a good thing and
should be common
practice and routine.

Peer-driven: ELA
teachers shared their
process for developing a
rubric and annotations of
reading. Its part of the
culture to share ideas.

Willing to support new

strategies and is willing
to experiment as long as
ideas are research-based.

FAC/SLT
established goals
that will rid PI
status.
Conversations about
data in PLCs allow
to teachers to reflect
on their practice and
commit to reteaching unmastered
standards.
Comes from within
and staff working
together in intense
situations.
Needed, and will
continue to evolve
as the new principal
acculturates to the
school community.

Guided by the site

plan and WASC
recommendations.
Amidst tough
budget times, she is
attempting
innovations.

219

District professional
development and supportQTEL/AVID

Reinforcing key elementscommunicate, collaborate,

critically think

Modeling strategies for

peers such as QTEL

PLC meetings led by PLC

leaders

Developing common
lessons, deciding on
homework assignments,
collaborating positively

10

11

12

PLCs discussed best

practices and how to use
quarterly exam results to
re-teach

Developing and
incorporating
standardized end-ofcourse exams in math
prior to the district
In PLC using Data
Director information and
prepped for district
quarterly exams

Assisted with the

hiring/interviewing
process, pushing ideas,
increased the number of
risk takers in the dept.

Through frequent
observations by
administrators with
positive, encouraging
feedback
Developing and
implementing a
cross-curricular
project that combines
reading, art, and
history. Making the
project fun for
students.
Havent directly built
the vision, but works
with staff and
students to carry the
vision. Build a bridge
between students and
staff (unity).
The ground mural
which helped to unite
students and
motivated them to be
involved in school.
The administration
led discussion of test
scores- compared
grade levels,
identified
strengths/weaknesses
Talks to colleagues
about the different
ways students learn.
Creating student
incentives to motivate
students to attend school
and improve their
grades.
PLC reviewing common
formative assessment
results and trends.
Meetings are
collaborative and led by
PLC leader.
Collaborate at all dept.
meetings and PLCsdiscuss strategies and
best practices

Inspired by the WASC

process- collaborative
approach FAC and then
out to the faculty.

Hit the mark for AYP,

API, CAHSEE.

Discussed D/F
grades in PLCs.
Teachers interpreted
their results and
developed a plan for
improvement.
15 PLCs throughout
the school year with
additional content
pullout days.

Encouraged to
attain mastery of
the standards
through meaningful,
focused instruction.
Study all
assessment data
through PLCs.
Worked with the
FAC and SLT to
create and
eventually with
district guidance as
the district strategic
plan was developed.
Increased the
number of AP
Spanish classes
from 1 to 10.

220

During PLC meetingsdemonstrated strategies

for successfully teaching
rational expressions

Doesnt occur during

faculty meeting but during
PLCs

13

14

Faculty meetings not

used for this purpose
instead in-house experts
provide in-service on
block scheduling,
SMART boards, critical
reading

Provided input at PLC

meeting about quarterly
exams

Filled in for an FAC

member- everyone
engaged in
meaningful
discussion- a sense of
shared leadership.

We collaborated
effectively when we
drew the mural

Faculty meetings are

used for operational
items. PLCs address
peer-driven instruction
and modeling strategies.
Minimum days are used
for PLCs.

Cheerleader for new

policies that impact
teaching- grading,
assignments.

Everyone has an
opportunity to
facilitate in a
collaborative
approach.
During an FAC
meeting confronted
the Big Elephant
in the room.
Meeting was intense
and teachers were
critical of the new
principal. Expressed
willingness to work
with the new
principal and be
supportive and
collaborative. This
action positively
changed the
direction of the
meeting.
Learning goals and
targets, student
interventions, and
policies are
presented at faculty
meetings.

221

18

At PLCs, teachers are

negative about students
not learning a conceptsuggested alternative
techniques
Need a little of each-too
simplistic. Everyone
should lead by example

Communicating current
realities- discussed
results of quarterly
exams in PLCs.
Discussion with no
finger-pointing
Discussed shared students- Observing highly
struggles as students and
challenged students in a
with the content
team-teaching classroom.
Helping teachers with
behaviorally challenged
students.

Old idea. Teaching

improves when leadership
is shared. Principal is a
facilitator.
Data results-common
formative assessments,
CAHSEE, CSTs

16

17

As a PLC leader and coteacher

15
Sharing the process of
National Board
Certification process,
modeling reflection of
own practice with peers.
Everyone should be
accountable and lead.

Its an opinion. Must

demonstrate a united
front-we are all in it
together.
Focus on areas where Assessments- CST,
students get the most CAHSEE, common
(skills and interest).
formative assessments
(district and site),
encourage informal
assessments
Worked with a
Discussed ways to
teacher who shared
motivate students to do
half of his students
better such as attend
from one class.
school regularly,
Collaborated and
complete homework.
discussed ways to
Make teachers feel that
help struggling
these are within their
studentscontrol.
academically (not
necessarily in Art)
and behaviorally.

During Art showsmust lead,

collaborate, and
speak publicly.

Alignment of
instructional goals
and site plan.
Always guided by
student achievement
data.
Addressing with
more patience and
interventions
students who are
failing courses.
Discuss options
with students and
make academic
demands. Teachers
must know that
failure is not option
along with their
failing students.

Disagree with the

statement. We all
lead and teach.

On the WASC team

as a facilitator and
writer.

222

All 9th graders in Algebra;

high rigor in exams

Encouraged to be PLC
leaders and acknowledged
by the staff at large

22

Recognition at monthly
faculty meetings.
Teacher of the Year
Award. Staff Member of
the Year Award.

Believers are more

influential. Work
cohesively as teams to
ensure all students are
successful

Yes. Coordinated
perhaps by the assistant
principal. Plan is to
conduct 2 observations
(one within the math
department and the other
outside). Observation not
used for evaluation.
Able to provide
Safe for dialog. Must
suggestions, develop
also communicate with
effective collaboration and students and inform them
trust, share an intrinsic
how to be successful
desire to improve

During WASCcollegial/non-threatening;
not occurring this year

21

20

19
None this year, only
administrative
observations mandated
by the district. There are
no structures for peer
observations.

Luncheons. Teacher
Appreciation Day.
Coordinated a letter
campaign written in
calligraphy to honor
teachers.

Recognition both
formally and informally.

Being diplomatic when

making suggestions to
peers. Some may be
defensive at first. After
time, trust and rapport
will develop.
Always talking on
Teacher longevity and
the students behalf,
commitment to site.
doing what is best for PLCs are productive and
students.
teachers share best
practices.

Yes, its safe to

dialog. Approach the
dialog in a suggestive
manner not directive.

Yes. Teachers visit

each others
classrooms and give
each other
confidential
feedback.

Usually a safe
environment for
dialoging but new
or probationary
teachers are nervous
about layoffs.
Advanced
Placement courses
with an open-door
policy. All students
can access the most
rigorous curriculum.
Teacher of the Year

Not this year. Peer

walkthroughs were
replaced by districtmandated
administrative
walkthroughs.

223

We are a PI school and

must improve our scores.

Collegiality, commitment,
and welcome change

26

27

New administration,
hectic with a new school
schedule, very much a
perfect storm situation,
things must get worse
before they get better
We can and do make a
difference. Rewarding. A
positive outlook.

PLC meetings- discuss

formal assessments and
provide feedback about
formative assessments
Staff committed to serving Excellent school but
low SES students who are under-appreciated.
often ELs
Almost out of PI but
struggle with the
achievement of ELs.

25

PLC weekly meetings

24

FAC-master schedule
and budget, Co-Dept.
Chairs, PLC leaders
rotate.

FAC, SLC, FAC

(governance),

23

To develop
leadership capacity
and help peers, share
knowledge.

Formulated a
collaborative team
when completing the
chalk art project.
Multi-cultural, staff
is open and
accessible to
students, staff unites
to make students
comfortable in the
school environment.
Literally under
construction,
optimistic about
heading to a brighter
future.

Working collectively
to ensure a
safe/secure
environment.

Teachers are
professionals who are
willing to do what is
necessary to accomplish
the job.

School has a lot of

potential-positive things
happening. Need high
commitment, love of
students, and a
willingness to work hard
to work this school.
Challenges ahead of us.

Attitude is were all in

this
together.Administration
recognizes the
challenging work of
teachers.
At PLC and Dept. level.
Trainings are available
upon request.

Some aspire to
move to higher
performing schools
and promote
themselves. Most,
want to make a
difference in

In PLCs everyone
has a voice. Also
share authority in
dept. meetings
A challenged
learning community
focused on high
achievement goals.
Challenged by
social issues and
lack of skills.
A need for
continued
interventions and
focused leadership
among all staff.

FAC, SLT, PLC,

WASC Focus
Groups

224

28

Encouragecollaboration,
improving teacher
practice, collective
responsibility/commit
ment
Discourage- pressure
by time and
assignments, lack of
training

Discourage
contractual issuealmost foolish to be
a dept. chair since
there is no incentive.
Focus on D/F grades
is necessary but
teachers get
defensive.
Discouragedoesnt know
enough about
leadership, need
a sense of
direction where
teacher leaders
are headed.

Encourage- intrinsic
rewards for leading,
positive changes for
the school.
Discouraging- time
necessary to be a
teacher leader,
other potential
teacher leaders are
intimidated by the
level of
responsibility.

students lives in a
positive way.
Discouraginglack of focus by
the
administration
due to constant
changes in
personnel
(teachers and
administrators)

225

226
Appendix O
Codes: Professional Learning Communities (PLC) Observations

Participants

Collaboration

Agenda Topics

A. Student Achievement

III.

A. Attempts

II.

A. Number
B. Late
C. Absent

I.

Addressed learning
targets for world
languages students

All participated in the

discussion and asked
questions.

7
0
2

World Languages PLC

Finalizing common
formative assessment
(CFA) #4
Clarifying and
enhancing common
formative
assessments

All participated and

made group decisions

5
0
2

English 10 PLC

No obvious agenda item

about student achievement
mostly about curriculum,
instruction, and assessment

High- all members were

active participants

7
0
1

Intermediate Algebra PLC

Discussed D/F ratios

Learning contracts
for struggling
students

High- all members

participated

7
0
0

World Languages PLC

227

Group Dynamics

B. Defined Teacher

A. Receptiveness of the
Teacher Leader

IV.

C. Budgets

B. Multiple Data
Elements

High

Discussed the
purchase of tape
recorders to during
AP testing

Academic language
Test setting protocol
Cornell Notes across
content areas
Infusing technology
to assist with
Advanced Placement
courses
Saturday Seminars
Chunking instruction

Teacher leader led

Obvious- teacher leaders

High- teachers working

together with the teacher
leaders

Reviewed Content
Standard Test (CST)
questions in Algebra 2
Developed quiz for
Intermediate Algebra
Reviewed test items to
ensure they are aligned
to standards
Developed two forms
of a test in Prob./Stats
Unit

High- often times

deference was made to a
senior member of the
PLC
Clearly defined- PLC

Not discussed

Assessment
reviewing rubric
scores
Writing sample topics

Reviewing
instructional
strategies such as
charting
Discussing quarterly
exams

Not Discussed

High

Reviewed action
work from the
previous meeting
Use of Power
Teacher vs. Grade
quick to monitor
student progress and
enter grades
Resurrected the
discussion about the
Cornell/Star
exchange

PLC leader facilitated

228

throughout the meeting

but allowed for ongoing
collaboration
High and ongoing- no
one hesitated to voice
their opinions
Not all Group Members
were in attendance

Leader Roles

C. Effective
Communication

D. Obstacles

Tense mood due to

teacher layoffs

Collegial- a mindset of
working together to
accomplish goals

encouraged input and

was inclusive of other
group members
In depth discussion,
dynamic conversation, all
members were active
participants
Tense mood due to teacher
layoffs. Leader had been
given a layoff notice which
was later rescinded.

leader facilitated
throughout the meeting

the discussion; other

members saw her as the
leader, facilitator,
implementer
Collegial, collaborative,
everyone had an
opportunity to
contribute
None observed

229

230
Appendix P
PLC Agenda-World Languages
Ocean View High School
World Languages Agenda PLC #15
MONDAY
April 5, 2010 Room 610 1:35-2:40 p.m.
Topics:

World Language Learning Targets, What ever happened to

Cornell/Star Schoolwide Exchange?

Members 7 members
1) Action work from last PLC: Do we have any cultural literacy
pieces/ideas/activities that WL can share and utilize to integrate
skills needed to exit PI, enhance progressive literacy, including
development of academic language in the appropriate target
language?

PLC Agenda
Items 2) Can we put on calendar the Cornell/Star PLC invitation to
Ocean View staff?

3) Discuss to implement the Learning Targets Plan for World

Languages.
1)
2)
Feedback
3)
1)
2)
Actions
3)

231
Appendix Q
Learning Targets

232
Appendix R
Math Department Agenda