what is the value of teacher leadership in school...

1 DRAFT- Please do not cite

What is the Value of Teacher Leadership in School Turnaround?

Jill Harrison Berg, Assistant Professor, UMass Boston; Leadership Coach, Grew Elementary School

Christine Connolly, Principal, Grew Elementary School

Chinelle Andrews, 4th Grade Teacher, Grew Elementary School

Abda Rebecca Lee, ELL Teacher, Grew Elementary School

Kristina Kelleher-Bianchi, Doctoral Candidate, UMass Boston; Lead Teacher, Burke High School

Abstract This case describes the efforts of one urban public elementary school as it worked to

maximize the leadership influence of teachers as a key strategy of the school’s turnaround effort. Presented with a state mandate to demonstrate dramatic academic improvement within three years, this school tapped the power of teachers as leaders. In fact, in this school, every teacher was supported to be a teacher leader, who would “lead within and beyond classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of teacher learners and leaders, and influence others towards improved educational practice,” (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001, p. 6).

In this case study, we invite readers to explore the ways in which teachers’ specialized

expertise and perspectives may have added value to the school’s improvement effort. While

initial academic achievement data from the first two years of the school’s turnaround effort are

positive, it is premature to deem the case a success. Yet we use this case to describe teachers’

influences on three intermediary factors that have an impact on student learning: instructional

expertise, school culture, and organizational improvement. Further, we examine the conditions

that facilitated teachers’ abilities to exert influence in these ways. Finally, we invite readers to

consider how school turnaround implementation might have been different without teachers’

voices and leadership, and how school improvement efforts might be transformed in their own

schools.

This draft has been distributed for discussion at the International Teacher Leadership Conference in Miami (March

2017) as the full version is being prepared for publication. Please do not cite. If you have questions or would like to

receive a final copy, please send a request to the corresponding author: Jill Harrison Berg at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


What is the Value of Teacher Leadership in School Turnaround?

School and district leaders around the globe are demonstrating an increased sense of

urgency to realize dramatic school improvement (Chapman, 2002; Hassel & Steiner, 2003;

Levin, 2006; Malen & Rice, 2004; Murphy, 2009; Wong & Shen, 2003). Their sense of urgency

stems from a recognition that too many of our schools fall short of preparing all students to

succeed in our 21st century world, as well as the concern that the schools that fall shortest are

frequently those serving students experiencing the most disadvantages. In the United States,

public school leaders are further fueled by high-stakes accountability measures, requiring the

lowest-performing schools to “turn around” within three years under threat of state sanctions,

including possible school closure (NCLB, 2001). In the United States alone in the 2006-07 school

year, almost 11,000 schools were in improvement status under state accountability systems set

up in compliance with No Child Left Behind (Forte, 2010, p. 80). Yet today, a decade later,

education researchers have made little headway in examining the variety of redesign efforts in

turnaround schools in a way that has provided models of effective turnaround plans or offered

sufficient guidance about the contextual conditions that matter for success. Students cannot

wait for education leaders to figure this out through trial and error. Research is needed to help

education leaders’ make smarter decisions as they work to turn around low-performing schools

and increase the potential for all students to have access to the quality education they need

and deserve.

One area that has emerged as a critical factor in school improvement efforts is

expanding leadership capacity. Next to the quality of teaching, school leadership has been

identified to be the most significant school-based influence on student learning (Leithwood,

Seashore, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). From a distributed perspective, school leadership

extends far beyond those holding formal administrative roles, to include any influences that are

“intended or perceived to be influencing the quality of the school’s core work,” (Spillane, 2006).

Could a school realize dramatic improvement through deliberate efforts to maximize the

intentional ways in which teachers are an influence on the school’s core work?


Background

Massachusetts Turnaround Supports and Accountability

Within the five-tiered accountability system of the Massachusetts Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education, a school may be determined to be a “Level 4” or

“turnaround” school when it meets two criteria: 1) low academic performance measured by the

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System over a four-year period and 2) insufficient

signs of substantial improvement over that time period (MA Executive Office of Education,

2017). Such schools are required to create and implement a school redesign plan in

collaboration with the ESE and local stakeholders that will foster an accelerated process for

rapid and sustainable improvement within three years.

Once designated with “turnaround” status, schools in Massachusetts are required to

hire a new principal who is allowed, and in fact required, to replace at least half of the teaching

staff. Turnaround principals are given certain budgetary and human capital autonomies

including the ability to select their own

teachers as well as remove them as they see

the need. Turnaround schools in this state are

also given priority in applying for school

improvement grants to fund supports such as

additional instructional time and professional

development. This typically includes an

extended learning day for students and up to

100 extra hours of professional development

for staff throughout the year. Throughout the

three-year turnaround effort, school

improvement progress is monitored via

Measurable Annual Goals (MAGs) for student achievement and attendance. Schools also

receive formative feedback during an annual Monitoring Site Visit (MSV) that is designed to

assess school-level implementation of four practices that are common to Massachusetts

turnaround schools with rapid gains in student achievement. These are: 1. Leadership, shared

responsibility, and professional collaboration; 2. Intentional practices for improving instruction;

3. Student‐specific supports and instruction to all students; and 4. School climate and culture

(Lane, Unger, & Souvanna, 2014).

Grew Elementary School

In the 2013-14 school year, the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

took note of the stagnant achievement patterns at a small elementary school in the Hyde Park

neighborhood of Boston.

Figure 1:

Turnaround Supports in Massachusetts

New principal with hiring autonomy

School improvement grant funds

Extended instructional time for students

Additional professional development time

Increased monitoring and feedback


In that year, student achievement data from the Grew School showed both low

performance and low growth. When compared to elementary schools statewide, the Grew

school’s growth ranked in the first percentile. While small achievement gains were made in ELA

and Math that year, scores still fell far below state targets, and in Science, scores were showing

a decrease. When state and district-based leadership teams convened to visit the school and

take a closer look, they agreed that there was “inconsistency in high expectations for all

students, a lack of fidelity to implementation of curriculum across all classrooms, and the lack

of a strong professional culture and shared leadership,” (Boston Public Schools, 2014, p. 3). As

a result, in fall of 2014, the Grew Elementary School was one of seven schools in Massachusetts

to be added to the list of Level 4, or “turnaround” schools. The Grew School may be considered

for exit from Level 4 status based on a data review in 2018, giving this community three full

school years to show evidence of dramatic improvement.

To transform the Grew School into a high-achieving and successful school, the

turnaround plan was designed to strengthen and tap teachers’ leadership skills. Teachers were

recruited and selected who were committed to the four GREW Core Values: Growth Mindset,

Rigorous Teaching and Learning, Equity and Engagement, and We are all Leaders. In support of

Table 1: Henry Grew Elementary School Overview of the School, Staff and Students

Henry Grew School Boston Public Schools (BPS) Students and Teachers Grew BPS

Grades offered: K1-5

13 classroom teachers

8 specialist teachers (ESL, Resource Room, Science, Technology, Physical Education, Interventionist)

Open since 1956

Turnaround School (Level 4) Designation began 2015

School hours: 8:15am-3:00pm

Location: Hyde Park in Boston, MA (urban setting with a suburban feel)

Many community partnerships

Birthplace of public education (First public school: 1635)

73% of school-age children living in Boston attend BPS

125 schools in BPS

School assignments are based upon family choice (choices include all schools within a mile of student’s home, plus more to include at least 4 high-quality schools.)

Max class size: 22 in K-2 and 25 in grades 3-5

Students Enrolled in SY15-16 262 56,650

Students of Color 93.9% 85.8%

Students from Economically Disadvantaged backgrounds

62.6% 49%*

Students with Disabilities 5.3% 20%

English Language Learners 16% 29%

Teachers Employed 21 4,573

Teachers of Color 42.9% 38%

Sources: www.bostonpublicschools.org and http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ *This number, which represents the number of students whose families are known to receive support from federally-funded programs,

is likely an underestimate of the number of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. An adjusted estimation system

used in SY16-17 places this number at 70%.

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/


Figure 2: The Grew Virtues

these core values, the full faculty engaged in leadership development activities throughout

each year. These activities address the knowledge and skills required for shared leadership and

collaboration; leading data inquiry cycles; supporting each other’s instruction; and building and

sustaining a community where high expectations and rigor are deliberately and consistently

supported.

The Grew School is characterized by a culture of teamwork. Every teacher is a member

of one of five school-wide leadership teams as well as a grade-level team. As teachers share

facilitation of these interconnected teams, they are able to support one another and utilize

each other’s differentiated expertise to improve the school as a site for teaching and learning.

At the same time, as they analyze data and open their classrooms, they help one another

strengthen and adjust their practice to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Teachers

at the Grew have the commitment and the capacity-building support to carry out the rigorous

and collaborative efforts needed for rebuilding and sustaining a high achieving school.

Research tells us that teaching quality is the most important school-based influence on

student learning (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kane, 2005), and that school

leadership is the second most important influence on student learning (Leithwood, et al., 2004).

In turnaround schools, where the systemic conditions do not yet exist for quality teaching and

student learning, the demands on leadership are great, as systems that ensure all teachers can

teach and all students can learn must be established. But, those demands do not have to land

on a single individual or a team of authoritative leaders. From a distributed perspective,

everyone (and every routine) that exerts influence on the organization’s core work is exerting

leadership. From a turnaround perspective, schools cannot afford to overlook teachers as a

powerfully transformative source of leadership for school improvement.


Could a school realize dramatic improvement through deliberate efforts to maximize the

intentional ways in which teachers are an influence on the school’s core work? The Grew

School’s turnaround plan was grounded by the theory that it could.

Teacher Leadership as a Resource for School Improvement

While there is limited research linking teacher leadership actions or interactions directly

to student learning outcomes, we do have ample evidence of teachers exerting influence in

ways that help create conditions for effective teaching and learning. Looking across this

literature, teachers have the potential to positively influence their colleagues-- and thus add

significant leadership capacity to their schools-- in three main ways. They help their colleagues

know how to improve teaching and learning (Teacher Expertise), they help their colleagues to

want to improve teaching and learning (School Culture), and they help their colleagues to co-

create a context that effectively supports improved teaching and learning (Organizational

Improvement).

Through the turnaround process, the Grew will develop and institutionalize distributed and shared

leadership. Under the direction of new principal leadership, the Grew will be primed to develop all

teachers to be leaders and facilitators of their own learning. With a staff of only twelve classroom

teachers all faculty will be prepared to share leadership and be accountable for the learning of all

students in the school. All adults will be provided with the professional development opportunities

that will build their team facilitation skills, improve their ability to support one another’s

instructional improvement, and increase their capacity to facilitate data inquiry cycles. The Grew will

offer professional collaboration opportunities to teachers through extended common planning times,

instructional support, teaming, and differentiated professional development based on student and

teacher data. -Grew Elementary Turnaround Plan, p. 3


Figure 3: Benefits of Teacher Leadership

One common way in which teachers influence their schools’ core work of improvement

is through their impact on colleagues’ expertise. Teachers often do this from the vantage point

of formal roles, for example as mentors (A. Lieberman, 1988) or instructional coaches (Elmore

& Burney, 1997; Hightower, Knapp, Marsh, & McLaughlin, 2002), where they facilitate

instructional change and increase the effectiveness of instructional practice. They might also

influence their colleagues’ expertise deliberately and directly by serving as professional learning

leaders, capable of increasing the both quantity (Carpenter & Sherretz, 2012) and quality of

professional development (Hickey & Harris, 2005; Vernon-Dotson, 2008). But, teacher leaders

do this in more subtle, informal ways as well. Researchers have noted that teachers tend to see

their knowledgeable colleagues as resources for professional learning (Margolis & Deuel, 2009).

Studies have also shown that how teachers talk to one another is associated with

improvements in teaching and learning (Berry, Johnson, & Montgomery, 2005; Hollins,

Mcintyre, DeBose, Hollins, & Towner, 2004; Strahan, 2003). Having one foot in the classroom

may give teacher leaders more credibility and influence for pushing their colleagues’

instructional practice (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2008) and working with colleagues can provide the

boost of confidence and sense of self-efficacy (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Ovando, 1996)

that teachers need to take risks and improve their professional practice.


Teacher leaders have also been found to influence school culture in ways that are

conducive to school improvement (Beachum & Dentith, 2004; Brooks, Scribner, & Eferakorho,

2004). Specifically, they can shape attitudes so that teachers are more willing to receive

assistance with instructional practice, support each other with disruptive students or be willing

to embrace change (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996, 2001; Lieberman & Miller, 2005).

Researchers have documented ways in which the presence of teacher leadership improves

morale (Frost & Harris, 2003; Smylie, 1994) and teachers’ sense of professionalism (Chesson,

2011), which pays dividends in increased collaboration. In fact, collaboration within

professional learning communities has been found to have a systematic and positive effect on

student learning outcomes (Anderson & Togneri, 2002; Louis & Marks, 1998; M.W. McLaughlin

& Talbert, 2001).

Teachers engage in complex decision-making daily as they steer their own classrooms

on a path of improvement. It turns out, researchers have found that schools that give teachers

a voice in school-wide decision-making see the results in organizational improvement (Griffin,

1995; Little, 1990; Ovando, 1996; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). In schools with teacher

leadership, there is improved implementation of new policies and procedures (Griffin, 1995),

which may be due to a greater acceptance of school reform in these settings (Weiss &

Cambone, 1994). Teacher leadership can have an impact on schools as organizations in many

ways (Silins & Mulford, 2002).

What is the value of teacher leadership in school turnaround?

At the Grew Elementary School, a significant investment of time, money and effort has

been made in developing and supporting all teachers as leaders. It is important, then, to

consider whether, how and why teacher leadership may be contributing to the success of the

school’s turnaround efforts. The results can help build theory about the value of teacher

leadership in school turnaround. In addition, the case offers ideas that may be useful to

practitioners implementing related efforts.

For this case study, we collected and analyzed pre-existing data, reports and artifacts

from December 2014 through January 2017 and we observed routine events at the Grew

School throughout the fall and winter of 2016. We coded our data in a shared database and we

wrote analytic memos to summarize emerging themes. We also met frequently throughout the

analysis phase to check understandings and interpretations.

Here we list examples of what teacher leadership looks like at the Grew School and

display the key changes that have been documented thus far in student achievement

outcomes. Then we explore some of the conditions that may have facilitated teachers’ abilities

to have an impact on the school’s improvement through teacher leadership.


HOW do Teacher Leaders Have an Influence at the Grew?

All teachers at the Grew School serve as leaders in myriad formal and informal ways.

What follows are examples drawn from our data of specific ways in which we saw teachers

exerting an influence that could be expected to lead to school improvement, and thereby,

student learning gains.

Figure 4: Observed Actions and Interactions of Grew School Teacher Leaders

Potential Influences on Teachers’ Expertise

Potential Influences on School Culture

Potential Influences on Organizational Improvement

Engaging in peer observation cycles & providing feedback

Collaborating to design and use rubrics to guide school walkthroughs that provide data to teachers vis-à-vis the school-wide instructional focus

Sharing resources for exploring the Grew Virtues and school-wide instructional practices

Mentoring novice teachers

Collaborative problem-solving around student challenges

Collaborative lesson planning

Collaborative review and interpretation of student data or evaluation of student work

Distributing staff surveys to collect and share assessment and intervention strategies

Teaching each other new technical skills for efficient management and monitoring of student learning

Leading reflective conversations about instructional practice

Designing and facilitating trust-building activities within meetings

Planning and holding assemblies to celebrate and showcase the Grew Virtues

Encouraging one another verbally and with hands-on support when necessary

Stepping into assigned roles and helping each other to carry them out skillfully

Taking risks to offer new suggestions and unsolicited advice

Introducing and sticking to meeting protocols

Holding each other to high expectations for struggling students

Making themselves vulnerable by asking revealing questions; modeling a learning stance

Accepting and showing appreciation for each other’s ideas

Sharing facilitation of school-wide leadership team meetings, including determining meeting topics and prioritizing tasks

Taking responsibility for documenting decisions and plans in ways that will make it easy for others to learn from or repeat the work

Generating and implementing solutions for challenges beyond their own classrooms

Creating GoogleDocs, Sites and other shared tools to make their work more efficient and effective

Designing routines and standards for peer observation cycles, walkthroughs and intervention tracking

Conceiving and implementing new ideas for engaging families and partners in the community

Applying for grants to attract new resources to the school


Any Grew teacher might be seen engaging in these activities through the formal roles every

teacher holds on a school leadership team, through common planning time structures, or through

informal everyday practice. In these ways, every teacher exerts a positive influence on the core work of

the school. Every teacher exerts leadership every day.

DOES Teacher Leaders’ Influence Have an Impact at the Grew?

The actions and interactions described above are potential influences on school

improvement. What is the evidence that these actions and reactions may have demonstrably

influenced the improvement trajectory of the school? The data to which we had access were

insufficient to draw conclusions about changes in teachers’ expertise, school culture or

organizational improvement within this time period. However, the state’s 2016 Monitoring Site

Visit did make some predictions about the value of these efforts. During this annual two-day

visit, external evaluators contracted by the state were charged with collecting and examining

multiple forms of data, including classroom observations, school artifacts, surveys and

interviews with teachers, families and community partners. They analyzed these data in

context of the state’s four “Turnaround Practices” and provided feedback. Among their

conclusions was the following:

Because of the principal’s commitment to shared teacher leadership, teachers

are actively involved in monitoring school progress, and every teacher is part of a

leadership team and trained in using student data through Teachers21. This

involvement has created a strong sense of shared ownership and accountability

among staff and strong support for sustaining turnaround efforts. (American

Institutes for Research, 2016, p. 6)

Figure 5: Holistic Rating for Each Turnaround Practice Area

Source: AIR, 2016, p. 5


This Monitoring Site Visit also produced a scorecard, pictured here. The high level of

implementation demonstrated in the Grew’s scores is atypical for a school in the first year of a

turnaround process in Massachusetts. But, ultimately, the bottom line is student learning.

In fact, turnaround efforts appear to be making a difference in student learning, as well.

The Grew School has already begun to see evidence of dramatic improvement on statewide

assessments. Data from 2016 assessments resulted in a Composite Performance Index that

exceeded district averages in every subject, and the school moved from the 1st to the 9th

percentile in the state in one year (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education, 2017). Meanwhile, interim and benchmark assessments indicate that progress in

SY2016-17 is on this same positive trajectory.

Schools are complex organizations and a variety of seen and unseen factors may have

influenced the identified bump in performance at the Grew Elementary School. Yet, the

school’s improvement model, which provides structures and supports to ensure every member

of the staff is helping to move the school forward, suggests that teacher leadership may have

had something to do with it.

Figure 6: Student Achievement over Four Years

Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, School and District Profiles

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/reportcard/SchoolReportCardOverview.aspx?linkid=105&orgcode=00350135&fycode=2016&orgtypecode=6&


WHY Does Teacher Leadership Have an Influence at the Grew?

It is possible for teacher leaders to influence their colleagues and their schools in ways

that will make a significant difference for student learning and achievement outcomes, but

under what conditions will they be willing and able to do so?

In our case, we began with a theory that teachers could be situated and supported to

influence one another’s expertise, school culture and the school’s organizational decision-

making. We found, through examination of multiple data sources, that certain key conditions

may have contributed to teachers’ abilities to be effective influences in those ways.

In the past, researchers have found that many teachers are unwilling to assume

leadership roles, (Keedy, 1999; Ann Lieberman, 1988; Smylie, 1992). When they are, they can

be stymied by lack of principal supports needed, including dedicated time, authority or

willingness to share leadership (Harris & Muijs, 2005; Johnson, 1990; Katzenmeyer & Moller,

1996; Mangin, 2007; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Smylie & Denny, 1990). Finally, even if they

are willing and supported by the principal, they may be held back by their own limited

repertoire of leadership skills (Lieberman & Miller, 1999; Taylor, 2008).

Some key strategies that emerged in our analysis helped us to understand how the

Grew School might have avoided these common pitfalls. They are detailed in the table below.

Figure 7: Three Conditions that Supported Teacher Leadership

Teachers Willing Recruitment and Hiring Teacher recruitment efforts communicate expectations and GREW core values. Then, the interview process is pursued as a two-way interview that allows teachers to determine if the school will be a good match. Growth Mindset Book Club and Whole-Staff PD Growth Mindset, one of our core values, was the focus of deep study during a summer staff book club before turnaround efforts began. During the first year of turnaround, teachers supported one another as they learned what growth mindset means and agreed upon what it should look like for all adults and children at the Grew. Teachers also facilitated a workshop for families on growth mindset. Trust-building activities Trust-building activities embedded in every meeting provide ongoing opportunities to deepen relationships and to feel we can take the necessary risks to work collaboratively. In addition, we establish and maintain norms to guide how we communicate and collaborate as a team.


Principal Support School-wide Leadership Teams All teachers are strategically matched based on skill set, interest and school role to least one of the five school-wide leadership teams: The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), the Family and Community Team, the School Site Council, the Student Support Team or the Comprehensive Behavioral Health Model Team. This ensures all teachers have designated time and opportunity to engage in collaborative decision-making regarding the factors that are most important to their collective success. Common Planning Time All teachers have a regularly-scheduled Common Planning Time meeting for 90 minutes each week. Teachers plan and facilitate these meetings, with occasional agenda items coming from the ILT. Thus, teachers have the time and collective autonomy to have their individual professional needs met while also moving forward on school-wide efforts and priorities. GoogleDrive At the Grew School, the principal is not the gatekeeper of information, as in traditional schools. Due to a shared GoogleDrive, teachers have access to all the information, tools and documents they need to make decisions and help move the school forward. In addition, teachers are not just empowered but expected to create documents and tools, such as meeting agendas or shared rubrics, that will be readily accessible to their colleagues. Thus, teachers can lead and influence their colleagues without asking for access and permission.

Leadership Training Summer Leadership Institute The Summer Leadership Institute provides an 4-day opportunity for Grew teachers to strengthen their leadership skills and expand their repertoire of leadership moves. The Summer Institute also ensures teachers deeply understand the school’s redesign plan and have goals and targets set for school-wide teams’ work during the school year. BTLC Courses The Boston Teacher Leadership Certificate (BTLC) courses are graduate-level, 3-credit leadership development courses embedded in teachers’ PD hours. By engaging in this job-embedded, sustained, role-relevant professional learning work as a whole staff, teachers have opportunities to practice and reflect on their leadership skills while also developing common language around leadership. Individual Leadership Coaching A role rotation routine ensures that each member of each team has an opportunity to assume a variety of leadership roles, including meeting facilitation. Before each teacher’s turn facilitating a school-wide leadership team meeting, s/he meets with the leadership coach to plan the agenda, prepare for the meeting and review his/her own personal leadership goals.


Conclusion

While distributed leadership and the view of teachers as leaders have been recognized

as essential perspectives in educational administration for a long time, there is still a lack of

useable knowledge supporting educational leaders to sort through the many variables that may

determine which of these concepts might lead to better outcomes for students and under what

conditions. While this individual case study takes place in a unique school under state-specific

mandates and does not offer generalizable conclusions, it provides an opportunity for

education leaders everywhere to learn from this school’s attempt to erect structures and

routines that maximize the depth of knowledge and experience among the teaching staff and

tap into this often overlooked source of leadership influence. Too many schools seeking to

close their achievement gaps and demonstrate dramatic academic improvement are each

trying to build knowledge of how to do so on their own. Such schools might instead be able to

build upon theories illustrated in this case about how teacher leadership can be an asset to

school turnaround efforts.

From this case, current and aspiring school and district leaders can expand their thinking

about new ways to engage and support teachers to exert a leadership influence throughout the

school and the important roles they play. Policy makers can consider how the policies and

state-level supports provided help or hinder the creation of schools that are nimble enough to

become learning organizations that have created space for teachers’ voices to improve their

ability to educate all children. Current and future teacher leaders can see one model of how

teachers’ voices might be valued and utilized to help lead an ever-improving school. All

educators, policy makers, and education policy researchers can consider the role of teachers’

unique voice in school redesign and school leadership.


Case Study Discussion Questions

Impact of teacher leadership

Teachers voices and leadership influenced improvement at the Grew in at least three key ways.

How might school turnaround implementation have been different at the Grew

without teachers’ voices and leadership?

In what ways might teachers’ voices and leadership transform improvement efforts

your own school?

Sustainability of teacher leadership

A range of supports have helped to make school-wide teacher leadership possible and effective

at the Grew.

How will the Grew School sustain these conditions after turnaround supports have

ended?

What would be required to create and sustain these conditions in a school without

turnaround supports?

This draft has been distributed for discussion at the International Teacher Leadership Conference in Miami (March

2017) as the full version is being prepared for publication. If you would like to receive a copy of the complete paper

when available, please send a request to [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


References

American Institutes for Research. (2016). Henry Grew Elementary (Boston Public Schools): Annual Monitoring Site Visit. Malden, MA: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Anderson, S., & Togneri, W. (2002). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance.

Beachum, F., & Dentith, A. M. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. Educational Forum, 68(3), 276-286.

Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 56-60.

Boston Public Schools. (2014). Grew Elementary Turnaround Plan. Malden, MA: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Brooks, J. S., Scribner, J. P., & Eferakorho, J. (2004). Teacher leadership in the context of whole school reform. Journal of school leadership, 22, 751-770.

Carpenter, B. D., & Sherretz, C. E. (2012). Professional developmetn school partnerships: An instrument for teacher leadership. School-University Partnerships, 5, 89-101.

Chapman, C. (2002). Introduction-- schools in urban and challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management, 22(3), 239-241.

Chesson, L. S. (2011). The nature of teacher leadership in a Boston pilot school. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community District 2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) & Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE).

Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88.

Frost, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3), 479-498.

Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? Washington, D.C.: Center for Reinventing Public Education, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington.

Griffin, G. A. (1995). Influences of shared decision making on school and classroom activity: Conversations with five teachers. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 29-45.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Hassel, B. C., & Steiner, L. (2003). Starting fresh: A new strategy for responding to chronically low performing schools. Chapel Hill, NC.

Hickey, W. D., & Harris, S. (2005). Improved professional development through teacher leadership. Rural Educator, 26, 12-16.

Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hollins, E. R., Mcintyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17, 247-269.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: BasicBooks. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant : leadership development for

teachers. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.


Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Keedy, J. L. (1999). Examining teacher instrucional leadership within the small group dynamics of collegial groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 785-799.

Lane, B., Unger, C., & Souvanna, P. (2014). Turnaround practices in action: A three-year analysis of school and district practices, systems, policies, and use of resources contributing to successful turnaround efforts in Massachusetts' Level 4 schools: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Leithwood, K., Seashore, K. L., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Levin, B. (2006). School in challenging circumstances: A reflection on what we know and what we need to know. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 399-407.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Teachers and principals: Turf, tension, and new tasks. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(9), 648-653.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers: Transforming their world and their work. New York:

Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. C. (2005). Teachers as leaders. The Educational Forum, 69(151-159). Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional

relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and

student experience in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575. MA Executive Office of Education. (2017). Turnaround in Massachusetts: How it works. 2017, from

http://www.mass.gov/edu/government/departments-and-boards/ese/programs/accountability/support-for-level-3-4-and-5-districts-and-schools/school-and-district-turnaround/turnaround-in-massachusetts/

Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631-660.

Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals' support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.

Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (Eds.). (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Margolis, J., & Deuel, A. (2009). Teacher leaders in action: Motivation, morality, and money. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(264-286).

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2017). School and District Profiles. from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities : professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Murphy, J. T. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years. Phi Delta Kappan, 9(3), 8-12.

No Child Left Behind Act, 107-110(2001). Ovando, M. N. (1996). Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Planning and Changing, 27(1),

30-44. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kane, M. (2005). Teachers, school and academic achievement.

Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.




http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/


Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations-- effects on teacher leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 443-466.

Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision-making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 14(1), 53-67.

Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the classroom. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 129-177). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools that have

beaten the odds. Elementary School Journal, 104, 127-146. Taylor, J. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.),

Teacher leadership: Using reserach to inform and reform (pp. 10-35). New York: Teachers College Press.

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Sage.

Vernon-Dotson, L. J. (2008). Promoting inclusive education through teacher leaderhsip teams: A school reform initative. Journal of School Leadership, 18, 344-373.

Weiss, C. H., & Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, shared decision making and school reform. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287-301.

Wong, H. K., & Shen, F. X. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89-119.

what is the value of teacher leadership in school...

Documents