The teacher leadership process: Attempting change within embedded systems

Kristy S. Cooper1 • Randi N. Stanulis1

•

Susan K. Brondyk2 • Erica R. Hamilton3

•

Michael Macaluso1 • Jessica A. Meier1

Published online: 18 November 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract This embedded case study examines the leadership practices of eleven

teacher leaders in three urban schools to identify how these teacher leaders attempt

to change the teaching practice of their colleagues while working as professional

learning community leaders and as mentors for new teachers. Using a theoretical

framework integrating complex systems theory with Kotter’s (Leading change.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1996) eight steps for leading organizational

change, we analyze the work and perspectives of individual teacher leaders, and we

examine how teams of teacher leaders and principals function collectively in their

efforts to lead instructional change. Our findings have implications for schools

seeking to utilize teacher leadership as a reform strategy for authentic instructional

improvement.

Keywords Complex systems theory � Instructional improvement � Organizational

change � Professional learning communities � Teacher leadership

Abbreviations PD Professional development

PLC Professional learning community

& Kristy S. Cooper

[email protected]

1 Michigan State University College of Education, 620 Farm Lane, Room 403, East Lansing,

MI 48824, USA

2 Hope College, Holland, MI, USA

3 Grand Valley State University, 401 W. Fulton, 476C DeVos, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA

123

J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113

DOI 10.1007/s10833-015-9262-4

Introduction

A persistent issue in closing the achievement gap is improving the quality of

teaching and learning in urban schools. Many argue that improving urban schools

requires increasing the instructional capacity of teachers through job-embedded

professional development (PD), where teachers engage in collaborative, ongoing

dialogue around teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Heck and

Hallinger 2009; Horn and Little 2010). Such PD often relies on teachers assuming

formal roles as ‘‘teacher leaders’’ who guide this learning (Lieberman and Friedrich

2010; Yost et al. 2009). For this leadership to lead to improved instruction, however,

teacher leaders must skillfully engage in leadership practice that effectively changes

how their colleagues teach. Yet, the process by which teacher leaders create such

change is not clear in the extant literature. Thus, we conducted yearlong embedded

case studies of eleven urban teacher leaders working in teams to improve the

instruction of their colleagues by leading teacher learning around discussion-based

teaching—that is, by trying to help their colleagues better structure and lead

conversations among students. Integrating complex systems theory (Opfer and

Pedder 2011) with Kotter’s (1996) theory on leading organizational change, we

analyze how the embedded systems within which teacher leaders operate shape the

change actions they take and whether and how those actions change teaching

practice.

The challenge to improve urban schools

Movements to improve urban schools have been debated and mandated by policy

makers and business leaders for decades. Yet, as Payne (2008) asserts, ‘‘Most

discussion of educational policy and practice is dangerously disconnected from the

daily realities of urban schools’’ (p. 5). Such schools often lack resources such as

adequate funding, qualified teachers, and instructional leadership. Urban schools

also face high rates of student and teacher turnover, and students often come from

poverty-stricken homes. Payne argues that multiple social barriers (e.g., low

expectations, pessimistic views of new programs, and distrust between colleagues

and leaders) and micropolitical barriers (e.g., perceptions of favoritism and power

struggles) exist within urban schools that further hinder reform efforts. Although

schools may adopt the rhetoric of new programs readily, they often fail to

effectively meet the intent of such programs or adapt initiatives to their school

context. Similarly, popular reforms such as instructional coaching and decentral-

izing decision-making often fail because of power struggles between coaches and

school leaders and because teachers are often left out of decision-making processes.

Through all of these initiatives, Payne identifies teacher resistance as a central

problem in improving urban schools. Thus, it seems pertinent to consider the

teacher’s role in creating authentic change.

86 J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113

123

Teacher leadership

Teacher leadership, in which teachers themselves generate and facilitate change, is

rooted in the teacher professionalism movement that began in the early 1980s and

continues today (Fairman and Mackenzie 2014; York-Barr and Duke 2004). Over

the past decade, the role of teacher leaders in school reform has become more

prominent in empirical research, and much of this research has posited that teacher

leaders are vital for successful school reform (Angelle and Schmid 2007; Crowther

et al. 2002; Frost et al. 2000; Katzenmeyer and Moller 2001; Murphy 2005; Valli

et al. 2006). The role of the teacher leader—what it is and how it is defined—is

varied, however, depending on the school context and the research. Yet, most

scholars agree that teacher leadership occurs within and outside classrooms to

influence school-wide instructional practice (Beachum and Dentith 2004; Katzen-

meyer and Moller 2001). Beyond role-specific duties or titles (such as department

chair or grade-level leader), teacher leadership rests with the agency of the teacher

to work with the principal, to build community, to support teachers, and to

determine, implement, or make manifest a school-wide vision for instructional

practice (Cranston 2000; Margolis and Huggins 2012; York-Barr and Duke 2004).

In reviewing the literature, York-Barr and Duke (2004) concluded that the

success of teacher leadership depends on interrelated, foundational conditions in

three areas: (a) school culture, (b) relationships, and (c) school structures. First,

researchers have argued that, for schools to exhibit positive change through teacher

leadership, they must have cultures that foster communication, collaboration, and

learning (Little 2006; Wood 2007). The principal must be open to and supportive of

teacher leaders, understand the teacher leaders’ work, and ensure they have a

prominent and visible role in developing the mission and values of the school

(Drago-Severson 2007; Little 2006; Mangin 2007; Wood 2007). Moreover, the

principal, teacher leader, and school faculty should work together to identify and

consistently uphold professional norms for collective learning and improved student

achievement and instruction. Secondly, teacher leaders need to build professional

and respectful relationships with colleagues through ongoing communication and

feedback that showcase their trustworthiness and instructional expertise. York-Barr

and Duke (2004) found that effective teacher leaders are generally seen as role

models, are respected by colleagues, and have leadership capacities. Teacher leaders

and principals also need to build positive relationships with one another, as

principals play a central role not only in developing teachers’ leadership skills, but

also in setting expectations and creating pathways for teacher leaders to succeed

(Mangin 2007). Finally, specific school structures that promote and support

effective teacher leadership include time for collaboration, shared leadership, and

embedded professional development (Drago-Severson 2007; Kardos et al. 2001;

Lampert et al. 2011; Little 2006; Paine et al. 2003). Although such structures

contrast with traditional hierarchical school structures and teacher isolation, which

are inherent in many schools (York-Barr and Duke 2004), when teachers have time

to discuss and plan instruction, analyze student work, and learn from others’

expertise, they can improve instruction and student learning (Chenoweth 2009;

J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113 87

123

Drago-Severson 2007; Kardos et al. 2001; Little 2006). Shared leadership between

school leaders and faculty, such that faculty have a voice in decision-making

processes, also supports teacher leadership (Drago-Severson 2007), as does PD that

provides teachers with individualized learning opportunities connected to their

everyday instructional practice (Borko et al. 2008; Drago-Severson 2007; Little

2006). With the work of teacher leaders embedded in such PD, they can support

their colleagues as they promote valuable, engaging teacher and student learning

(York-Barr and Duke 2004).

The process of teacher leadership

Despite the breadth of research on the foundational conditions for teacher

leadership, this body of work does not present a complete picture of how teacher

leadership can and does improve instruction. That is, even when these conditions are

met, teaching and learning do not necessarily improve. There is a little-understood

teacher leadership process by which teachers take actions that lead to change in

their organizations. York-Barr and Duke (2004) identify three broad means of

influence by which effective teacher leaders can shape the work of individuals,

groups, and organizations. Those means of influence are broadly conceived and

include maintaining a focus on teaching and learning, establishing trusting and

constructive relationships, and interacting through formal and informal points of

influence. York-Barr and Duke identify the ultimate outcomes of such influence as

improved instructional practices and student learning. Yet, they do not articulate the

specific actions and tactics teacher leaders can take as they engage in those

relationships and interactions that would effectively change, rather than merely

influence, the instruction of other teachers. In distinguishing between these two

outcomes, we conceptualize influence as indirectly altering another’s practice by

informing their thinking in ways that shape what they do, whereas change is

intentionally propelling others to do some specific thing in a specific way that differs

from current practice.

In expanding on York-Barr and Duke’s work, Fairman and Mackenzie (2012) use

interviews with forty formal and informal teacher leaders to describe nine activities

in which teachers can influence instructional change, such as through collaborating

with peers or contributing to school improvement efforts. They position these

teacher leadership activities on a continuum from classroom-based to school-based.

More recently, Fairman and Mackenzie (2014) describe specific strategies these

same teacher leaders use to influence colleagues, such as by creating collegial

climates or building trusting relationships, and they provide examples of ways

teacher leaders have enacted these strategies. Through examining teacher leaders’

self-reports, Fairman and Mackenzie contribute to our understanding of the teacher

leadership process by delving more deeply into the actions individual teacher

leaders take. However, their findings rely on reflections from teacher leaders and

inferences about cause-and-effect relationships that may overstate the impact of

teacher leadership on ultimate outcomes. As with much of the research, Fairman and

Mackenzie’s conclusions rest on two assumptions: (a) that teacher leaders have a

88 J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113

123

means to influence their colleagues’ work, and (b) that teacher leaders engage in

actions that lead their colleagues to change their practice. In the present study, we

examine these assumptions by analyzing videos of teacher leaders attempting to

produce change in their colleagues’ teaching and by using interviews and other

triangulated data to contextualize these change efforts in the embedded systems

within which teacher leaders function.

Theoretical framework

We draw on Kotter’s (1996) eight steps for leading organizational change as a

framework for classifying the tactics teacher leaders use when attempting to change

the practice of their colleagues. The change process, according to Kotter (1996),

begins with a sense that the status quo is not working. Outside factors, which in

schools might be low test scores, may serve as the impetus, but real change occurs

only when an internal sense of urgency motivates individuals to change what they

do (Step 1). For this to happen, individuals with power (e.g., administrators, formal

teacher leaders, influential teachers) take up the mantle of change and form a

guiding coalition (Step 2). This coalition leads initial change efforts by clearly

articulating the problem, developing a vision for the change process, and defining

feasible and focused strategies for enacting that vision (Step 3). The challenge for

the coalition is to ensure that individuals at all levels of the organization understand

and ‘buy in’ to the vision. In schools, coalitions might accomplish this by

championing a new instructional practice, trying it out themselves, and making it

central to their work with teachers. Their work also involves communicating the

vision in various modes and forms (e.g., faculty meetings, hallway/lunchroom

conversations, testimonials, etc.) and delivering a consistent message in ways that

appeal to the hearts and minds of teachers (Step 4). The goal is to embolden teachers

to try new ideas, convincing them to make the necessary sacrifices involved in

changing their instructional practices. As part of this work, the coalition provides

supports, such as resources (time, funds, and materials) and training, to empower

broad-based action toward the vision (Step 5). They make way for this action by

removing obstacles to the vision and confronting people who undermine change

efforts (intentionally or not). As the changes begin to take hold, the guiding

coalition focuses on creating and highlighting short-term wins that propel further

action (Step 6), and they turn their attention to producing more change by

acculturating new members, constantly revisiting the vision, and ensuring that all

decision-making relates directly to the change goals (Step 7). Throughout the

process, the guiding coalition operates with the full understanding that they will, at

some point, relinquish power to others as change begins to spread and new practices

become anchored in the culture of the school (Step 8).

To contextualize teacher leaders’ efforts to create change, we also utilize

complex systems theory (Opfer and Pedder 2011), which recognizes that teacher

learning is nested within complex systems that have varying levels of overlap and

influence. Lasting change can only take hold when extending beyond a guiding

coalition and becoming prevalent among many individuals in a school, each of

J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113 89

123

whom possesses their own personal system of orientations toward a given reform—

such as their beliefs, understandings, and experiences with the reform. Achieving

change that permeates many systems within the school context is perhaps the most

complicated step in achieving true transformation. Opfer and Pedder (2011) assert,

‘‘Teacher learning tends to be constituted simultaneously in the activity of

autonomous entities (teachers), collectives (such as grade level and subject groups),

and subsystems within grander unities (schools within school systems within

sociopolitical educational contexts)’’ (p. 379). They frame these systems and

subsystems as ‘‘interdependent and reciprocally influential’’ (p. 379). They argue

that examining the nested systems in which teacher learning occurs sheds light on

‘‘the complex relationships between systems that promote and impede teacher

learning and instructional change’’ (Opfer and Pedder 2011, p. 379). As teachers are

asked to assume a leadership role, formal teacher leaders coexist within both the

leadership team and the teaching staff. In this unique boundary-crossing position,

teacher leaders may have a voice in decision-making and goal-setting, yet can

maintain their access and credibility with teachers, all of which may allow them to

play an important role in conveying the necessary sense of urgency to initiate and

propel change. From a complex systems perspective, we posit that teacher leaders

can link the visioning process and the implementation of new teaching practice

while also shaping the school’s operative culture across multiple systems (Opfer and

Pedder 2011). Once the change process begins, teacher leaders could contribute

further by connecting systems as they communicate a consistent vision and engage

in the learning process with their colleagues. As we have hinted at here, the present

study seeks to situate Kotter’s (1996) eight steps for leading change within the

complex systems that frame teacher leaders’ work as a way to understand the

process of teacher leadership.

Professional development for teacher leaders

This study accompanied our work as university-based PD providers in a 4-year

program with 28 high-poverty urban charter schools in a large Midwestern city.

Two or more teachers at each school were placed in formal teacher leadership

roles—as professional learning community leaders (PLC leaders) or mentors for

novice teachers—to build a school-wide culture of professional inquiry around

discussion-based teaching. Schools were invited to participate in this PD as part of

their required work in a large federally funded grant initiative led by the state

charter association. Their participation in the grant provided multiple years of free

professional development, along with school resources and stipends for teacher

leaders. Our PD focused on developing the practice of teacher leaders who could

facilitate inquiry-oriented PLC meetings that enhanced the quantity and quality of

professional dialogue among teachers. At the same time, we prepared mentors to

work one-on-one with beginning teachers to further facilitate professional dialogue

and teacher learning. At the outset of the program, we introduced school principals

to a rubric (Stanulis et al. 2011) to help select their PLC leaders and mentors. Rubric

criteria included elements of Dewey’s (1933) characteristics of educative teachers,

90 J Educ Change (2016) 17:85–113

123

including being wholehearted (approaching teaching with joy and connecting

content and students in meaningful ways), trustworthy (opening practice to others

and valuing conversations with colleagues about teaching and learning), and

openminded (being open to learning and eager to try new ideas; being open to

reflection and analysis of one’s teaching). The rubric also integrated York-Barr and

Duke’s (2004) foundational conditions that teacher leaders be respected as teachers,

be learning oriented, and have leadership capacities. Depending on the size of their

school, principals selected one or two PLC leaders and one to four mentor teachers.

Because principals are foundational to school change (Grissom and Loeb 2011), we

included the principals in three PD sessions each year, building on the initial session

where we discussed selection of mentors and PLC leaders. The content of this PD

focused on ways to develop and support a school culture that supports teacher

learning, and we provided modeled examples of principles and practices of an

effective inquiry-focused PLC meeting. Principals were also updated on themes of

the mentor/PLC leader sessions and regularly met with their PLC leader and

mentors as a school team to plan next steps for enacting instructional change in their

school.

In the 2012–2013 school year, PLC meetings and mentoring both centered on

promoting an inquiry-based learning climate around discussion-based teaching.

Discussion-based t