The authors readily recognize that this is a preliminary study. Since so little exists in the literature about the role of superintendents in encouraging teacher leadership, we attempted to determine through some representative data gathering whether we would find enough substance to warrant a more ambitious effort on a larger scale. In a sense it may be viewed as a study whether to study.

We begin with some background about the origins and justifications of the evolution of teacher leadership. We then discuss a mini-study of administrative preparation programs in Michigan as to whether they are including the study of teacher leadership in their administrative training course content.

The core of our study gathers data from a group of teachers who participated in a rigorous two-year leadership development program called the Galileo Academy and a group of administrators from the districts involved in the academy program, herein referred to as the Galileo consortium This program began almost 12 years ago with significant funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and contributions from the participating school districts. The most reliable data on this subject seemed likely to come from teachers who had been trained as teacher leaders and who, at least in some instances, had a substantial amount of experience operating in this role, however defined in each district.

We conclude with some decisions about the viability of a larger and more substantial study.

Teacher leadership as a concept has been expanding for almost a generation (Barth, 1990; Hart, 1995). Interest in this topic can be attributed to a number of sources. The following are among the most important:

In summary, distributing responsibility to lower levels of the hierarchy enabled the organization to draw on the knowledge, talents and skills of a much large cadre of staff than was possible when decision-making responsibility was reserved for those at the top of the chain of command.

In addition to the natural evolution of the concept of teacher leadership as a result of changes within society as noted above, there is also an intellectual justification of the importance of expanding leadership within an organization.

Perhaps no concept has so quickly caught the imagination of today’s leaders as the notion of systems thinking. Superintendents have realized that in order to achieve today’s high standards of learning for all students, an outcome never before asked of schools, it is necessary to consider all the elements that impact that learning: teacher skill sets, curriculum design, classroom organization, presentation methodology, principal behaviors, and other factors. And these are only the internal factors that impact learning. External factors such as parent and child physical and mental health, family economic circumstances, adult family relationships and other factors also impact the child’s learning. No one school leader, whether at the district or building level, would be able to gather, evaluate and apply all of this information in a coherent manner. A task this large requires the involvement of everyone in decision-making if a school organization is to achieve the goal held out by Peter Senge (1990) of creating a learning organization, “an organization this is continually expanding its capacity to create it future.” Perhaps the foremost organizational theorist of the 20th Century, Peter Drucker, articulated this same notion around this time (1992): “Every enterprise has to become a learning institution {and} a teaching institution. Organizations that build in continuous learning in jobs will dominate the 21st Century” (p.108).

Another prominent writer of the present generation, Margaret Wheatley (1992), has noted that there are basic principles of science that can lead us to reconceiving the best organizational pattern for a successful organization. She notes “a business that focuses on its core competencies identifies itself as a portfolio of skills rather than as a portfolio of business units”(p. 93). One could readily substitute the word “classrooms” for the words “business units.” If, she argues, everyone in the organization accepts the “simple governing principles: guiding visions, strong values, organizational beliefs – the few rules individuals can use to shape their own behavior…” then all individuals in the system can be given the freedom to lead through their “sometimes chaotic-looking meanderings” (p. 13).

No widely recognized definition of the expression “teacher leadership” has taken hold in the profession. This concept can refer to a very informal request of one of more teachers to play a role in some program or activity in which they are known to have a particular interest and/or skill to a very formal delegation of responsibilities with accompanying title and possibly increased compensation. Different definitions abound:

Katsenmeyer and Moller (2001) have identified the continuum of spheres of influence that teacher leaders might be selected to operate in within the school:

One fact is clear: a principal can delegate authority for the completion of a task to a staff member but not responsibility for the task’s completion in satisfactory manner, at least as far as most superiors are concerned.

The likelihood that a principal will be enthusiastic about using the knowledge and skills of the teaching staff in leadership positions in the high stakes environment of a modern school tends to depend on several factors:

All of these issues deserve further exploration. However, the purpose of this paper is to discuss to what extent the chief administrative official of the district, the school superintendent, is likely to influence principals in expanding their commitment to teacher leadership and so the other topics will not be addressed.

It is a first principle of management that an organization must be aligned in certain key areas if it is to operate harmoniously and successfully (Davis, Hellervik, Gebelin, Shead, & Skube 1992; Vancil, 1975). The chief executive of a publicly traded or governmental unit must want what the policy making board wants or chaos is guaranteed. A chief executive cannot achieve the goals to which he or she is committed unless leaders at all levels of the organization are concentrated on those goals and working toward them. These notions have always been true. What has been a new issue in recent years, as illustrated in the earlier part of this piece, is the complexity of the challenges faced by private industry in a global economy and the seemingly impossible task of assuring success for all students for education by 2013-14.

A good example of the challenging task facing school districts and the impatience that accompanies calls for superior student achievement comes from the state of Mississippi, where the governor recently signed legislation that will terminate the positions of school superintendents if their districts are determined to be “underperforming” two years in a row (McNeil, 2008).

We have noted earlier the changed role of building principals from building and staff manager to instructional leader. There is additional literature we can cite in addition to the citations given earlier in the paper (Danzig, A. B. et al. (2007); McEwen, S. K., 1998; Nelson, B. S., 2005;Webster, W. S., 1994) regarding this transformation of role; the literature is almost limitless. Clearly the growth of this instructional responsibility for principals has moved in symmetry with the growth of teacher leadership. Reaching out to teacher leaders has given principals more minds, hearts and hands to address the complex task of improving learning for everyone. In effect leadership has evolved from a personal characteristic to an organizational one (Hart, 1995), from an individual function to a collective function (Elmore, 2003).

There are studies that point to the superintendent’s role in encouraging instructional leadership on the part of the principal (Schlechty, 2002) and a few that mention the role of superintendents in fostering teacher leadership. One study of a successful school district notes, “When districts work to develop principals as chief learning officers, the district is creating leaders of leaders. This evolution of leadership roles help[s] the district establish leadership as a distributed responsibility with teachers” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 17). In describing the superintendent of a Clifton, New York school district who has drawn their approbation (who is one of the co-authors it would seem), Spanneut and Ford note that the superintendent encourages principals to “grow people” (p.29). Principals discuss teacher leadership at administrative leadership team meetings and are sent to National Staff Development meetings for three major reasons:

One relatively recent textbook on the superintendency (King, 1999) spoke of the need for district leaders to “listen to the voice of teachers and other staff members” (p.22), but did not mention the concept of teacher leadership as a vehicle for that purpose. White (2007) refers to the a recent study by Waters and Marzano (2006) for the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL) group that has found “a substantial and positive relationship between district-level leadership and student achievement when the superintendent, district office staff, and school board members do the ‘right work’ in the ‘right way.’” White suggests that superintendents do that “by sharing the leadership role with boards, administrators, and teachers” (p.58).

These positive studies of superintendents playing an important role in fostering teacher leadership seem few in number. On the contrary, it is not hard to imagine situations where superintendents are worse than indifferent to teacher leadership and frustrate the expansion of the role of teachers as leaders, but documentation is difficult to come by. Superintendents who fear loss of control may insist that teacher leaders, if they have any role at all in significant events, especially those outside the teacher’ s classroom, be limited in their responsibilities. School boards that hold their superintendents on a “short leash” may, intentionally or not, discourage the diffusion of authority that enables an organization to utilize the full range of its talent pool. Though books about the superintendency and about superintendent/ school board relations are replete with anecdotes about such unhealthy relationships between boards and superintendents, studies looking at the negative effects of superintendent behavior on the expansion of teacher leadership just do not seem to exist.

However, there is a whole area of related research that we have not investigated. We refer to the topic of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). By definition, a PLC seeks to energize the whole staff into taking responsibility for student learning and to share concepts, techniques, and, perhaps most important, responsibility for the success of all students. DuFour and Eaker (1998) identify the core concepts in their conception of a PLC:

For purposes of this study, the researchers utilized the PLC concepts as defined by Shirley Hord of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (2004).

These dimensions include supportive and shared leadership, collective learning and its application, shared values and vision, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice.

Almost by definition it is impossible to have “shared mission, vision and values” and “collaborative teams” without a designing a school where leadership is decentralized. Though we conclude that districts where superintendents either promote or support PLCs are, by definition, places where the district leader is inevitably promoting teacher leadership, we looked at a narrow body of literature, the specific role of the superintendent in fostering or at least supporting teacher leadership.

This paper documents a study of two parts. The first part was designed to study the various educational leadership programs in six universities in Michigan. The second part of the study reviewed the perceptions of stakeholders in the Galileo Consortium, including academy participants and other leaders in consortium districts.

In Part I of the study a convenient sample of professors attending a state meeting was asked to indicate whether and to what extent students in administrative training programs in their institutions are exposed to the concept of teacher leadership. We did not attempt to ascertain the specific content of the curriculum.

Part II of the study involved a survey that was mailed to teachers and educational leaders after being field-tested with a group of teacher leaders who carefully reviewed each question and gave suggestions for word choice and demographic variables. This study had both numeric and open-ended questions. We developed the survey to ascertain what superintendent behaviors contributed to the enhancement of, or acted as a barrier to the development of teacher leadership in a district. The survey questions were based on the research and literature base about teacher leadership (Crowther, 2002; Danielson, 2006; Lambert, 1995; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Moyer & Katzenmeyer, 2001). Specifically, we were interested in knowing how educators perceive the extent of the general barriers to teacher leadership with particular emphasis on discovering how superintendent words and actions influenced teacher leadership We were also interested in determining what, if any, of the relationships with various constituencies would promote teacher leadership. Finally, we wanted to ask a question that mirrored the language of the ISLLC (Interstate School Licensure Consortium); namely, what were the variables of knowledge, skills, and dispositions of superintendents that would enhance teacher leadership. Additionally, participants were encouraged to contribute comments concerning the promotion of teacher leadership.

Part II of the study had four sections on the survey. Section I consisted of demographic information in which respondents identified their district and position they held. Section II of the survey asked respondents to rate the extent of the barriers of teacher leadership from most (5) to least (1) significant. An additionally column, DK, was listed for a “don’t know” response. Section III asked respondents to rate the extent of the support that superintendents provide for principals to develop teacher leadership in the schools according to the following scale: 5- most significant, to 1- least significant. Section III also asked respondents to rate the extent of importance of the relationships of the superintendent with seven constituent groups, ranging from the Board of Education to the union. Section IV was the open-ended section, asking respondents to comment on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are needed by superintendents to enhance or maximize teacher leadership. The final, open-ended question allowed for participants to add additional comments about the superintendent’s role in promoting teacher leadership.

The surveys for Part II of this study were mailed to stakeholders in the Galileo Consortium, including teacher leaders, central office administrators, building leaders, union representatives, or superintendents. All respondents were guaranteed anonymity for their responses. Of those 39 individuals who returned surveys, 39% were present or former Galileo Leaders, 23% were central office administrators, 21% were elementary principals 8% were middle school principals and 5% were high school principals. Therefore, the results of this survey represent what a select group of Galileo leaders think, as opposed to the other leaders in their districts. However, this paper is preliminary, both in terms of the data that are reported, and the conclusions that can be drawn from a select audience and incomplete survey response.

Part I of the Study

The results of the first part of the study involved an informal survey of select university professors who indicated that the concepts regarding teacher leadership have emerged as part of their formal study, although explanations for the type of exposure and involvement were not ascertained. The informal survey results were as follows: Six university representatives responded to our brief questionnaire, four public institutions and two private institutions. There were no significant differences in their responses. The questions and range of responses were as follows:

Finally, respondents were asked to identify the extent to which the following topics were covered in their programs:

We assume from the comments made on a survey form and in conversations afterward that the following were included in one or more curricula:

We make no claims for these data. We reasoned that one of the first places that embryonic administrators might be wisely exposed to the concept of teacher leadership was in administrative preparation program. Our informal survey suggests that the concept of teacher leader is recognized as an important one in some administrator/leader training programs and not others.

Part II of the Study

The responses from the second part of this study were calculated by using SPSS, determining the mean, frequency, standard deviation, and percent of each response. Additional comments were typed verbatim for review of themes and issues that were important to the participants. Both numeric and non-numeric responses are included in this paper.

The survey asked three primary questions: one asked participants to rank the extent of barriers to developing teacher leadership, one asked about the importance of superintendents’ behaviors in supporting principals, and one asked about the importance of relationships of the superintendent with various constituencies. The questions and high and low mean scores for responses are included below for review:

1. Which of the items below do you see as the most significant barriers to developing teacher leadership?

High mean score- 3.67. Lack of understanding about what teacher leadership includes.

Low mean score- 2.82. Lack of district administrative support.

The respondents answered that the lack understanding of the concepts about teacher leadership were most important as a barrier to developing teacher leadership, although it is interesting to note that the mean score (3.67) was closer to a four on a five point scale, (five being the most significant of the possible responses). The responses for this question were largely clustered around the middle of the possible responses, signifying that they are neither most significant nor least significant. The mean scores of respondents did not report that any of the barriers listed were the “most significant” as barriers to developing teacher leadership.

2. Which of the items below do you regard as the most significant superintendent behaviors in supporting principals who are committed to developing teacher leadership in their schools?

Respondents were asked which superintendent behaviors are most important in supporting teacher leadership. It was clear that all behaviors were deemed important since all mean scores were 3.9 and above. In order to determine which superintendent behaviors are perceived as most important, we calculated the percentages of positive responses (either a 4 or a 5) for questions 9-19. Table 1. shows the comparative importance of these closely associated behaviors. This information becomes important with regard to professional training of future superintendents.

Table 1. Comparative importance of superintendent behaviors

3. Evaluate the importance of each of the superintendent’s relationships listed below as they relate to the promotion of teacher leadership.

High mean score- 4.79. Relationship with the teachers and building administrators

Low mean scores- 3.66. Relationship with the Board of Education and relationship with community.

Once again, the respondents felt that all the variables were important. In this question, the responses about relationships with teachers and building administrators received the highest means, which is understandable, given the nature of developing teachers as leaders in the school district. In short, all relationships of superintendents were determined to be important.

Section IV contained the open-ended questions. The answers revealed an array of responses for knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for promoting teacher leadership in the districts. Some responses are summarized here for review according to the most prevalent response for each category.

Knowledge:

Skills:

Dispositions:

Other selected comments- verbatim:

The results of this preliminary study confirm what the literature states about teacher leadership; namely, that district leaders are crucial to the success of promoting teachers as leaders within the district. These data, while representative of what a small and select group of trained teacher leaders think, align with the literature about the importance of a variety of knowledge, skills, and dispositions of building and district leaders who carefully place teacher leadership front and center among the various district initiatives. The results from this brief study suggest that trust matters, as do relationships, especially relationships with teachers. The teachers are clearly watching for the congruence between what is espoused and what is championed by their superintendents.

This study also suggests the importance of the knowledge base of superintendents, that they are expected to be strong instructional leaders, conversant with information about educational best practice, and the process of change. The comments from respondents revealed the importance of “staying the ground” with regard to following through on change efforts when things became difficult. Superintendents need to carefully navigate the political white waters of change, while communicating to all the stakeholders. Consistency is important to the teachers who are watching for follow through on behalf of district leaders.

The knowledge, skills, and dispositions listed by the respondents in this survey also align with the literature about change in PLCs. Specifically, the respondents outlined what they perceive would make a difference to them relative to promoting teacher leadership, and the themes centered around trust, advocacy and support, vision, and consistency of action on the part of superintendents. These comments directly support the research on PLCs (Hord, 2004; Hord & Sommers, 2008; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001, 2006). Personal factors matter in the development of teacher empowerment and shared decision making; this is not about an announcement of a new job description or delineation on a flow chart. Superintendents must tend to the personal issues in transitions.

Because teacher leadership is a key construct in the implementation of PLC principles, we have merged the literature from the two fields and concluded that what is offered as advice for PLCs would benefit the districts that are attempting to develop teacher leadership practices. Likewise, knowledge from research and best practice literature about the leadership for building principals and PLCs would serve superintendents well

This paper began by suggesting that this is “a study whether to study.” In other words, initially the authors were not convinced that studying the role of the superintendents in supporting teacher leadership would be as important as the role of building principal. After reviewing the literature and reviewing the results of our preliminary two-part study, it is clear that this is indeed a topic worth studying. We conclude that the leadership of superintendents plays a fundamental role in creating organizations in which both authority and responsibility for student achievement can be distributed and shared. It is the superintendent who is uniquely positioned to “develop principals as chief learning officers” who are “leaders of leaders” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 17).

It is the superintendent who, in the words of one of the survey respondents, “must lead by example. He/she cannot be too ‘hands off’ from solving building/district barriers to teacher leadership. There must be a strong expectation the teacher leadership will be developed in each school and intervention when the building administrator has not embraced this role.”

While there is emerging support in the literature for the superintendent’s role in supporting teacher leadership, the data from our study does not provide adequate insight into the specific superintendent roles or relationships that support teacher leadership. Further study is needed to determine the relative importance of roles and relationships. The pilot study seems to suggest that all of the behaviors and relationships listed in the survey were of relative equal importance. It might be noted that when everything is seen as important important, nothing is important!

A similar lack of specificity is evident in the responses from faculty members from the six colleges and universities who responded to questions about the role of teacher leadership in their administrator preparation programs. All indicated that it was included but were unclear about how it is defined and included in their programs. Further, it is not clear that superintendent preparation programs address the values, dispositions and competencies associated with collaborative leadership in general and teacher leadership in particular.

Further study is needed to address the following:

The next stages of this study will include modifying the survey instrument to provide more information about the relative importance of superintendent roles and relationships, surveying teachers and administrators beyond the Galileo Consortium in Southeast Michigan, and conducting individual interviews and focus group sessions with selected survey respondents.

The potential significance of this study is noted by Shirley Hord (2004) who asks, “Assuming we find the means to nurture democracies in schools, how do we train and retrain principals, superintendents, and other district personnel to let go of the reins and allow these democracies to flourish?” (p.4). A new vision for democratic participation in schools would mean that leaders will lead powerfully when they distribute leadership. Leading organizations is no longer a solo act. Leaders, in this new and expanded definition, are part of the community, and organizations are seen as living entities, a system of interconnected parts. Superintendents who understand this concept and are willing to embrace its principles become partners in creating new possibilities in the districts they serve.

This study should shed some light on the institutional commitments that must be made if teacher leadership is to become a reality. A follow-up study will be particularly useful to practicing administrators seeking broader ownership for student achievement and for professors preparing administrators to lead such schools.

Angelle, P. M. (2007). Teachers as leaders: Collaborative leadership for learning communities. Middle School Journal, 88(3), 54-59.

Ash, R.C. & Persall, J. M. (2000, May). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 15-22.

Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443-449.

Brown, L. (2008, March/April). Principal, 87(4), 28-32.

Crow, G. M. (1996). Leadership: A relevant and realistic role for principals. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Crowther, F., Kaagen, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The 1990s and beyond. New York: Dutton.

Danzig, A. B. et al. (2007). Learner centered leadership: Research, policy, practice. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

DuFour, R. (1999, February). Help wanted: Principals who can lead professional learning communities. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 83 (604), 12-17.

Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York: Random House.

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from inside out: Policy, practices, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fleming, G.L., & Thompson, T.L. (2004). The role of trust building and its relation to collective responsibility. In S. M. Hord, (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. (pp. 31-44). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J. (1983). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Co.

Hord, S. (2004). Professional learning communities: An interview. In S.M. Hord, (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. (pp.5-14). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices form research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. Boston: Jossey-Bass.

McEwan, E. K. (1998). Principal’s guide to raising student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press.

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

McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. NY: Teachers College Press.

McNeil, M. (2008, May 21). Mississippi law places tight rein on superintendents. Education Week, 18.

Morrissey, M., & Cowan, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining a professional learning community: Actions and perceptions of principal leadership. In S. M. Hord, (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. (pp. 45-57). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nelson, B. S. (2005). Effective principal: Instructional leadership for high quality learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pankake, A. (2004). The superintendent’s influence on the creation of a professional learning community. In S. M. Hord, (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. (pp.127-139). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Patton, M.Q., (1989). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Spanneut, G. & Ford, M. (2008, Spring). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals flourish. Journal of Staff Development, 29(22), 28-33.

Webster, W. S. (1999). Learner centered principalship: The principal as teacher of teachers. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

White, E. G. (2007, March). The primacy of the superintendent. The School Administrator, 64(3), 58.

Content actions

Footer

This work is licensed by C. Robert Maxfield, Caryn M. Wells, William Keane, and Barbara A. Klocko under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Nov 12, 2008 10:38 pm -0600.