Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disabling conditions: Investigating instructional leadership teams in action

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated why and how principals selected members for their instructional leadership team (ILT) and how this selection criteria and process may have impacted team members’ understandings of, and behaviors on, the team. Qualitative methods, specifically interviews and observations, were used to explore team members’ perceptions regarding the team’s purpose, function, and selection criteria as well as how these perceptions seemed to impact team members’ behaviors. Data were collected for a period of 8 months during the 2011–2012 school year from ILT in four, in-district charter schools. Results suggest that principals had difficulty articulating their teams’ purposes and functions, with the latter remaining primarily informational or consultative; members were not given decision-making authority. Additionally, when selecting team members, principals prioritized broad representation of teacher groups over other criteria. This focus on role representation above expertise, coupled with teachers’ tendencies to embrace traditional professional norms, limited ILT members’ abilities to effectively work together to lead instructional reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pseudonyms used throughout.

References

  • Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. E., & Togneri, W. (2005). School district-wide reform policies in education. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., & Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predicators of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 565–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed leadership (Full report). Oxford, UK: National College for School Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blegen, M. B., & Kennedy, C. (2000). Teachers and principals leading together. NASSP Bulletin, 84(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Translating qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. A. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrispeels, J. (1992). Purposeful restructuring: Creating a culture for learning and achievement in elementary schools. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrispeels, J. (2004). The dynamics of sharing and distributing leadership. In J. Chrispeels (Ed.), Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1065–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Wheeler, J. (2006). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.

  • Conley, S.C. (1989). “Who’s on first?”: School reform, teacher participation, and the decision-making process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., Salas, E., & Stout, R. (2003). Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 177–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, M. (1997). Teacher leadership vs. school management: Flatten the hierarchies. Teacher Leadership, 70(5), 236–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, J. L. (1991). What it takes to restructure education. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2007). The search for internal and external fit in teams. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 259–285). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Dickinson, T. L., & Mclntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 19–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M., Johnson, S. M., Kirkpatrick, C. L., Marinell, W. H., Steele, J. L., & Szczesiul, S. A. (2008). Angling for access, bartering for change: How second stage teachers experience differentiated roles in schools. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1088–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dozier, T. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational Leadership, 70(7), 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (1995). Structural reform in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J. M. (1992). School-based decision-making: A principal-agent perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, G. (2004). Principals and teachers as continuous learners. In S. M. Hord (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities (pp. 20–30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C. J. Pearce & C. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the how and whys of leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7(3), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Ballew, A. C. (2001). Leading in a culture of change (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, H. K., Bell, R. L., & Bodie, N. L. (2011). Team management by objectives: Enhancing developing teams' performance. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 12(3), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & KwangSuk, Y. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teacher College Record, 109(4), 877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552–2585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2001). The team diagnostic survey: An instrument for assessing the structure, dynamics, and leadership of work teams. Boston, MA: Hay McBer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2012). Sustainable leadership (Vol. 6). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2505–2534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the fourth way. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13, 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Improving schools through teacher leadership. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, A. W. (1990). Impacts of the school social unit on teacher authority during work redesign. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 503–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Education Research Journal, 46(3), 626–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemelt, S. W. (2011). Performance effects of failure to make adequate yearly progress (AYP): Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework. Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 702–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 366–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D. M., & Barth, M. (2004). NCLB and teacher retention: Who will turn out the lights? Education and the Law, 16(2–3), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Oliver, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A. (2005). Teams’ female representation and perceived potency as inputs to team outcomes in a predominately male field setting. Personnel Psychology, 58, 893–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. G., & Miron, G. (1999). Evaluation of the Michigan public school academy initiative. Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.

  • Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens a situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools. Science Communication, 4(4), 478–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multi-level analysis of team diversity and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenmeyer, G., & Moller, M. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1996, October). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Lexington, KY.

  • Levine, T. H. (2011). Experienced teachers and school reform: Exploring how two different professional communities facilitated and complicated change. Improving Schools, 14(1), 30–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(30), 226–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 491–518). White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional lives. The Teacher’s College Record, 91(4), 510–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacBeath, J., & Cheng, Y. C. (2008). Leadership for learning: International perspectives. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1998). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature—a call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education (Vol. 2, pp. 289–342). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. Doubleday: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.

  • Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 605–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. S., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller, G. (2004). Building teacher leadership within a traditional school structure. In S. M. Hord (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities (pp. 148–150). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, NY: Teacher College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved student learning—what do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2009). Revised models and conceptualization of successful school principalship in Tasmania. In M. Mulford & B. Edmunds (Eds.), Successful school principalship in Tasmania. Launceston: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newhall, R. J., & Buchen, I. H. (2004). Democratic learning and leading: Creating collaborative school governance. Lanham, MD: Scare Crow Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Alejano, C. R., Marzolf, E. (2006). Roles, responsibilities, and authority of school leaders: Patterns in current research, theory, and practice. State of the field monograph published by the University of Washington Center for Teaching and Policy and The Wallace Foundation.

  • Preston, C., Goldring, E., Berends, M., & Cannata, M. (2012). School innovation in district context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., Alcover de la Hera, C., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work team effectiveness: A review of research from the last decade (1999–2009). Psychology in Spain, 15, 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93(3), 352–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, E., Salas, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, R. (1994). Making democracy work in our schools. NASSP Bulletin, 78(558), 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smylie, M. A. (1996). Research on teacher leadership: Assessing the state of the art. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 521–592). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision-making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, D. (2006). Leading for results: Transforming teaching, learning, and relationships in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distributed perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 31, 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, M., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuit, D. A. (2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnaround and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B, Jr, Polzer, J. T., Seyle, C., & Ko, S. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swap, W. C. (1984). Group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toole, J. C., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy in: Implications for school reform initiatives. Learning Environment Research, 5, 235–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, M.A.: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlstrom, K., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. Minneapolis: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J., & Bast, J. L. (2003). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America’s schools (No. 521). Stanford, CA, USA: Hoover Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense making. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, J. (2011). Finding common ground: Teacher leaders and principals speak out about teacher leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(1), 7–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellins, R. S. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Dixon, G. R. (1994). Inside teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C., & Feun, L. (2007). Implementation of learning community principles: A study of six high schools. Nassp Bulletin, 91(2), 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. M., & Feun, L. (2012). Educational change and professional learning communities: A study of two districts. Journal of Educational Change, 14, 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: An inquiry into ideology and practice hin teachers’ professional work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 71–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarger, S. J., & Lee, O. (1994). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neag School of Education, 249 Glenbrook Road, Unit 3093, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    Jennie Miles Weiner

Authors
  1. Jennie Miles Weiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennie Miles Weiner.

Appendices

Appendix A: Description of partnership schools

Partnership schools’ conditions of autonomy

Partnership schools are members of the City Public Schools (CPS) that have certain autonomy from City Public Schools’ policies and from City Teachers Union contract provisions. The goal of these autonomies is to enable Partnership schools to become “models of educational excellence which will help to foster widespread educational reform throughout all of the City Public Schools.” (CPS Memorandum 1995) What follows is a summary of these autonomies.

Staffing: Partnership schools have the freedom to hire and excess their staff in order to create a unified school community. Teachers should play a significant role in staff hiring. Partnership schools:

  • Decide on staffing pattern and work assignments that create the optimal learning environment for students.

  • Hire staff who best fit the needs of the school, regardless of current status (member of the district, or not, although every teacher becomes a member of the CTU bargaining unit).

Budget: Partnership schools have a lump sum per pupil budget, the sum of which is equivalent to other CPS schools within that grade span. A lump sum per pupil budget allows the school to decide on spending that best provides programs and services to students and their families. Partnership schools:

  • Have a lump sum per pupil budget, the sum of which is equivalent to other district schools within that grade span and includes salaries, instructional materials, etc.

  • Choose either to purchase identified discretionary district services or to not purchase them and include the per pupil cost in the school’s lump sum per pupil budget.

Curriculum and Assessment: Partnership schools have freedom to structure their curriculum and assessment practices to meet students’ learning needs. While all Partnership schools are held accountable to federal- and state-required tests, these schools are given the flexibility to determine the school-based curriculum and assessment practices that best prepare students for federal and state assessments. Partnership schools:

  • Are freed from local district curriculum requirements—they can choose what content to cover and how to cover it.

  • Set their own promotion and graduation requirements, although they must be comparable in rigor to the district requirements. Partnership schools have an emphasis on competency-based, performance-based assessments.

  • Decide on professional development in which faculty engage.

Governance: Partnership schools have the freedom to create their own governance structure that has increased decision-making powers over budget approval, principal selection and evaluation, and programs and policies, while being mindful of state requirements, including school councils. Partnership schools:

  • Have governing boards that assume increased governing responsibilities, while being mindful of state mandates, including the following:

    • Setting and maintaining the school vision

    • Principal selection, supervision, and evaluation, with final approval by the Superintendent in all cases

    • Budget approval

  • Set their own policies that the school community feels will help students to be successful.

School Calendar: Partnership schools have the freedom to set their own school days and calendar years for both students and faculty in accordance with their principles, within the parameters for Partnership schools set by the CTU contract. In particular, research supports a correlation between increased faculty planning time spent on teaching and learning and increased student achievement. Scheduling which allows for summer and school year faculty planning time contributes to a more unified school community and education program. Partnership schools:

  • Increase planning and professional development time for faculty

  • Organize the school schedule in ways that maximize learning time for students and planning time for faculty

Appendix B: Initial interview protocol

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. This study aims to better understand how leadership teams function in education.

The data you provide may be used for publication, at conferences, or in research papers. However, this interview will remain completely confidential. That is, at no point will your name be connected with anything you tell me. With your permission, I will be recording this conversation but will not share this recording with anyone. Again, thank you for your time.

Warm ups:

  1. 1.

    Tell me a little about your professional background.

    1. a.

      How long have you worked at this particular school?

    2. b.

      In the district?

    3. c.

      In what capacities?

  2. 2.

    Tell me a bit about how you came to be on the ILT

    1. a.

      What was your appointment process (if applicable)?

    2. b.

      What considerations did you make when deciding whether or not to take the role?

Team Purpose:

  1. 1.

    When you first joined the ILT, what did you hope to accomplish?

    1. a.

      What specific goals, if any, did you have for yourself?

    2. b.

      Your school community?

  2. 2.

    From your perspective, what are your ILT’s main goals or objectives?

    1. a.

      Can you tell me about the process that the team went through to select these goals/objectives?

      1. i.

        Probe about the level of agreement among team members around these goals.

    2. b.

      Can you give me an example of how these goals/objectives were shared with the large school community (e.g., other teacher, parents, students, etc.)?

  3. 3.

    How do you define and measure the success of the ILT?

    1. a.

      Can you give me an example of what that measure would look like in action?

  4. 4.

    How effective do you think the team has been OR will be in meeting its goals (dependent on length of team membership)?

    1. a.

      Can you tell me about a time when the team faced a challenge as it tried to meet its goals?

    2. b.

      Can you give me an example of how the team used its strengths to achieve its goals?

Internal Interactions:

  1. 1.

    What knowledge and skills does the team need to do its job effectively?

    1. a.

      Do you feel that your team has these knowledge and skills? Why or why not?

    2. b.

      Can you give me an example of a time in which:

      1. i.

        Your team had exactly the right knowledge and skills to address an issue.

      2. ii.

        You wished you had a person with different/additional skills or knowledge on the team?

  2. 2.

    How would you describe the pattern of discussion among team members?

    1. a.

      (Either way) Why do you think this is the case?

  3. 3.

    Tell me about a time when team members changed their mind about a particular strategic decision.

    1. a.

      Why was that issue important to members?

    2. b.

      Who contributed to the discussion?

    3. c.

      How did it get resolved?

Challenges to Translating the Plan into Action:

  1. 1.

    How receptive have teachers been to the ILT’s plans? Why?

    1. a.

      Can you give me any examples of certain groups of teachers being more receptive to the ILT’s plans than others?

    2. b.

      What does this look like in action?

  2. 2.

    Can you tell me a bit about any challenges the team has faced as it has tried to translate its plans into action?

  3. 3.

    How do you think the team might be more effective in enhancing instruction?

Conclusion:

  1. 1.

    Thank you so much for your time. Before we end is there anything else you want to share about the ILT or your experience on the team?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiner, J.M. Disabling conditions: Investigating instructional leadership teams in action. J Educ Change 15, 253–280 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9233-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9233-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation