Summary of Empirical Research On Teacher Leaders' Administrative Practices

24 Pages·2010·0.13 MB·English

Summary of Empirical Research
On Teacher Leaders’ Administrative Practices
April 2010

Neil Schiavo
Barbara Miller
Amy Busey
Kristin King

Education Development Center, Inc.

Prepared for the
Math and Science Partnership Knowledge Management and Dissemination Project
Horizon Research, Inc.
Education Development Center, Inc.
A Math and Science Partnership Research Evaluation and Technical Assistance project
funded by the National Science Foundation

Work on the Math and Science Partnership Knowledge Management and
Dissemination Project is funded by the National Science Foundation
(EHR-0445398).

These writings do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 1
© Education Development Center April 2010
Summary of Research on Teacher Leaders’ Administrative Practice
In their administrative practice, teacher leaders take on roles that resemble the
leadership provided by school administrators, such as principals, assistant
principals, and department chairs. These administrative practices cover a range
of roles, in which teacher leaders may work independently or alongside
administrators, and in which they may assume instructional or managerial
responsibilities. Teacher leaders’ administrative practices can be sorted into
three categories:

•Instructional leadership. Teacher leaders may be called upon to be at the
forefront of decisions and activities that inform the design of the school
instructional program. For instance, teacher leaders may assume primary
ownership of activities such as facilitating professional development or analysis
of student data.
• Collaboration with administrators. Teacher leaders may collaborate with
administrators in a complementary role. In these roles, teacher leaders may be
viewed as a source of knowledge of subject matter content and classroom
pedagogy in administrative decisions. Examples include: serving on school
leadership teams or school councils or participating in the development of a
school improvement plan.
• Managerial practices. Teacher leaders may assume responsibilities for general
operations that would typically fall to administrators, such as managing or
ordering instructional materials.

In a review of the research on teacher leadership, fifty-two studies were identified
that included findings on teacher leaders’ administrative practice. These findings
examined three aspects of teacher leaders’ administrative practice:
• The phenomenon of teacher leaders engaged in administrative practices.
• The relationship between programs to prepare teacher leaders and post-
program teacher leader administrative practices.
• The impact of teacher leaders engaged in administrative practices.

Teacher Leaders Engaged in Administrative Practice
A review of the empirical literature identified fifty-two studies that shared findings
on teacher leaders engaged in administrative practice. As a set, these studies
provided an image of the types of administrative tasks conducted by teacher
leaders and the context in which these tasks occur. Information about the
research studies is displayed in Table 1. Information about the interventions
examined is shown in Table 2.

Studies revealed that teacher leaders engaged in each of the three categories of
administrative practice, although some forms of administrative practice were
more commonly reported than others. Most frequently, studies reported on
teacher leader practice in collaboration with school administrators, such as
principals or assistant principals. This category of administrative practice was
found in twenty-eight studies. In these studies, teacher leaders worked
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 2
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 1: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Study Characteristics
Data
Measures Purpose
Types
Q C
Study Sample Size 1 Qualitative Quantitative Interviews Observations uestionnaires Surveys/ oaching Logs Other Evaluation Program Research
The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms in high-poverty middle
schools: A multi-site, multi-year study (Balfanz et al., 2006) NA2 • • • • • • •
Improving instruction through schoolwide professional development: Effects of the data-on-
enacted-curriculum model (Blank et al., 2006) 439 • • •
Secondary department chair roles: Ambiguity and change in systemic reform (Bliss et al., 1995) 68 • • •
Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy
15 • • • •
instruction (Burch & Spillane, 2003)
Improving instructional capacity through field-based reform coaches (Coggins et al., 2003) 48 • • • • • •
Teacher leaders: Middle school mathematics classrooms (Cruz, 2003) 20 • • • • •
Giving teachers a voice (Dagenhart et al., 2005) 748 • • • • •
Making meaning of teacher leadership in the implementation of a standards-based mathematics
4 • • • •
curriculum (Doyle, 2000)
A study of school teams: Democratically functioning or malfunctioning? (Doyle et al., 2007) • • • •
Turning good teachers into great leaders (Dozier, 2007) 179 • • •
Creating cross-school connections: LC networking in support of leadership and instructional
23 • • • •
development (Edge & Mylopoulos, 2008)
The role of external facilitators in whole school reform: Teachers’ perceptions of how coaches
5 • • • • •
influence school change (Feldman & Tung, 2002)
Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform (Gigante &
26 • • • •
Firestone, 2007).
The summative evaluation of the Science Quality Education Project (SQEP) (Gillis et al., 1991) 62 • • •
Usurpation or abdication of instructional supervision in the New York City Public Schools (Glanz
8 • • • • •
et al., 2006)
Emerging Voices on teacher leadership: Some South African views (Grant, 2006) 6 • • • •
Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership (Halverson et al., 2007) • • • •
Developing leaders for tomorrow: releasing system potential (Harris & Townsend, 2007) 139 • • • • •
Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools (Heller & Firestone,
NA3 • • •
1995)

1 For the purposes of this table, Sample Size refers to the number of teacher leaders involved in the study.
2 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from unspecified numbers of teachers, teacher leaders, and students representing 3 schools.
3 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from principals, teachers, and district informants representing 8 schools.
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 3
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 1 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Study Characteristics
Data
Measures Purpose
Types
Q C
Study Sample Size 4 Qualitative Quantitative Interviews Observations uestionnaires Surveys/ oaching Logs Other Evaluation Program Research
Department heads’ perceptions of their influence on mathematics achievement in
24 • • •
Singapore and the United States (Kaur et al., 2004)
Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and
204 • • • • • •
collegiality (Khourey-Bowers et al., 2005)
Complex positioning: teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical reform (Leander
4 • • • • •
& Osborne, 2008)
Collective leadership effects on student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008) 2570 • • •
The mantle of a mentor: The mentor’s perspective (Lemberger, 1992) 17 • • •
Contested ground: The basis of teacher leadership in two restructuring high schools
21 • • • • •
(Little, 1995)
Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership (Mangin,
12 • •
2007)
Content is the subject: How teacher leaders with different subject knowledge interact
8 • • • •
with teachers (Manno & Firestone, 2006)
Leadership alignment: The challenge of distributed leadership (Martinez et al., 2005) NA5 • • • • •
Teacher implementation of mathematics curriculum initiatives in a test-driven
accountability environment: An ethnographic investigation into leadership; school 18 • • • • • •
culture; and teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and concerns (McGee III, 2006)
Individuals and leadership in an Australian secondary science department: A qualitative
10 • • • •
study. (Melville et al., 2007)
Metaphorical duality: High school subject departments as both communities and
10 • • • •
organizations. (Melville & Wallace, 2007)
The role of the science co-ordinator in primary schools. A survey of headteachers'
222 • • •
views (Moore, 1992)

4 For the purposes of this table, Sample Size refers to the number of teacher leaders involved in the study.
5 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from teachers, principals, district leaders, and formally designated teacher leaders in 5
schools.
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 4
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 1 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Study Characteristics
Data
Measures Purpose
Types
Q C
Study Sample Size 6 Qualitative Quantitative Interviews Observations uestionnaires Surveys/ oaching Logs Other Evaluation Program Research
Teacher leadership (in)action: Three case studies of contrasting schools (Muijs &
NA7 • • •
Harris, 2007)
Instructional leadership for quality learning (Pansiri, 2008) 240 • • •
Teachers in middle level schools: Implications and recommendations from a National
NA8 • • •
Study (Petzko, 2002)
Findings and implications of the NASSP National Study of Leadership in Middle
1,400 • • • •
School Levels, Volumes I and II: Teachers in middle schools (Petzko, 2004)
Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective (Printy, 2008) NA9 • • •
When Teachers Work to Use Progress Monitoring Data to Inform Literacy Instruction:
35 • • • • •
Identifying Potential Supports and Challenges (Roehig et al., 2008)
Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools (Ruby, 2006) 4944 • • • •
Principals and teachers leading together (Ryan, 1999) 12 • • • • •
Theme and variations: One middle school’s interpretation of mandated action
3 • • • •
research. (Sheridan-Thomas, 2006)
The practice of leading and managing schools: Taking a distributed perspective to the
NA10 • • •
school principal’s work day (Spillane & Camburn, 2006)
Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating
NA11 • • • •
resources in an undervalued school subject (Spillane et al., 2001)
Forms of Capital and the Construction of Leadership (Spillane et al., 2007) 84 • • •

6 For the purposes of this table, Sample Size refers to the number of teacher leaders involved in the study.
7 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified, data were collected from an unspecified number of teacher leaders, principals, and teachers.
8 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from over 2400 principals.
9 Data were collected from 2,470 in-service teachers and an unspecified number of principals.
10 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from 42 principals.
11 The sample of teacher leaders was not specified; data were collected from 13 K-8 schools.

MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 5
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 1 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Study Characteristics
Data
Measures Purpose
Types
Study Sample Size 12 Qualitative Quantitative Interviews Observations Questionnaires Surveys/ Coaching Logs Other Evaluation Program Research
Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office
2 • • • • •
coaches as instructional leaders. (Swinnerton, 2007)
Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school culture (Vesilind & Jones,
2 • • • • •
1998)
The instructional cabinet and shared decision making in the Pittsburgh Public Schools: 54
• • •
Theory, practice and evaluation (Wallace et al., 1990)
Oregon mathematics leadership institute project: Evaluation results on teacher content 180
• • • •
knowledge, implementation fidelity, and student achievement (Weaver & Dick, 2009)
Low profile, high impact: Four case studies of high school department chairs whose
4 • • • •
transactions “transform” teachers and administrators (Wettersten, 1994)
Science as content, science as context: Working in the science department (Wildy &
2 • • • •
Wallace, 2004)
Transitioning from Teacher to Instructional Leader (Yost et al., 2009) 6 • • • • • •
High school department chairs: Perspectives on instructional supervision (Zepeda &
3 • • • • •
Kruskamp, 2007)

12 For the purposes of this table, Sample Size refers to the number of teacher leaders involved in the study.
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 6
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 2: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Intervention Characteristics
Teacher Leader
Subject14 Intervention
Work
G ins C M S
rade levels 13 Math Science Other NA Full description voluntary Involvement Teacher leader involved STEM faculty involved Researcher(s) tructional prograLeadership of administration ollaboration with anagerial practic administrators hared work with
Study m e

The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms
in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site, multi-year study (Balfanz 5-8 • Y Y N Y •
et al., 2006)
Improving instruction through schoolwide professional development:
Effects of the data-on-enacted-curriculum model (Blank et al., 2006) 6-8 • • Y Y N N •
Secondary department chair roles: Ambiguity and change in systemic 9-
reform (Bliss et al., 1995) 12 • • • Y ? N N • •
Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming
K-5 • • N ? N N • •
mathematics and literacy instruction (Burch & Spillane, 2003)
Improving instructional capacity through field-based reform coaches K-
• Y ? N Y • • •
(Coggins et al., 2003) 12
Teacher leaders: Middle school mathematics classrooms (Cruz, 2003). 6-8 • N N N N •
K-
Giving teachers a voice (Dagenhart et al., 2005) • N Y N N • •
12
Making meaning of teacher leadership in the implementation of a
K-5 • Y Y N N • •
standards-based mathematics curriculum (Doyle, 2000)
A study of school teams: Democratically functioning or
K-8 • N ? N N •
malfunctioning? (Doyle et al., 2007)
Turning good teachers into great leaders (Dozier, 2007) NA • • • N Y N N • •
Creating cross-school connections: LC networking in support of
K-3 • N N N N •
leadership and instructional development (Edge & Mylopoulos, 2008)
The role of external facilitators in whole school reform: Teachers’
perceptions of how coaches influence school change (Feldman & Tung, K-8 • Y ? N Y • •
2002)
Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing
K-8 • • N Y N N • •
reform (Gigante & Firestone, 2007)

13 “NA” refers to grade levels were not specified in the study.
14 “Other” refers to other subject areas that were a focus of teacher leader work (e.g., literacy); “NA” refers to teacher leader work that did not have a subject-specific focus (e.g., engaging in whole
school reform).
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 7
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 2 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Intervention Characteristics
Teacher Leader
Subject16 Intervention
Work
G ins C M S
rade levels 15 Math Science Other NA Full description voluntary Involvement Teacher leader involved STEM faculty involved Researcher(s) tructional prograLeadership of administration ollaboration with anagerial practic administrators hared work with
Study m e

The summative evaluation of the Science Quality Education Project
K-12 • N Y N ? •
(SQEP) (Gillis et al., 1991)
Usurpation or abdication of instructional supervision in the New York
NA • • N Y N N •
City Public Schools (Glanz et al., 2006)
Emerging Voices on teacher leadership: Some South African views
NA • N Y N Y •
(Grant, 2006)
K-8;
Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership
K-2 • • Y Y N N • •
(Halverson et al., 2007)

Developing leaders for tomorrow: releasing system potential (Harris
NA N Y N Y •
& Townsend, 2007)
Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight
K-5 • Y ? N ? • •
schools (Heller & Firestone, 1995)
Department heads’ perceptions of their influence on mathematics
NA • N Y N N • • •
achievement in Singapore and the United States (Kaur et al., 2004)
Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of
6-12 • Y Y N N •
inquiry and collegiality (Khourey-Bowers et al., 2005)
Complex positioning: teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical
K-5 • Y Y N Y •
reform (Leander & Osborne, 2008)
Collective leadership effects on student achievement (Leithwood &
K-8 N N N N •
Mascall, 2008)
The mantle of a mentor: The mentor’s perspective (Lemberger, 1992) K-12 • N Y N Y •
Contested ground: The basis of teacher leadership in two
9-12 • Y N N N • •
restructuring high schools (Little, 1995)
Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher
K-5 N Y N N • •
leadership (Mangin, 2007)

15 “NA” refers to grade levels were not specified in the study.
16 “Other” refers to other subject areas that were a focus of teacher leader work (e.g., literacy); “NA” refers to teacher leader work that did not have a subject-specific focus (e.g., engaging in whole
school reform).
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 8
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 2 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Intervention Characteristics
Teacher Leader
Subject18 Intervention
Work
G ins C M S
rade levels 17 Math Science Other NA Full description voluntary Involvement Teacher leader involved STEM faculty involved Researcher(s) tructional prograLeadership of administration ollaboration with anagerial practic administrators hared work with
Study m e

Content is the subject: How teacher leaders with different subject K-
• • N Y Y Y •
knowledge interact with teachers (Manno & Firestone, 2006) 12
Leadership alignment: The challenge of distributed leadership (Martinez K-
• Y ? N Y • •
et al., 2005) 12
Teacher implementation of mathematics curriculum initiatives in a test-
driven accountability environment: An ethnographic investigation into
8 • N Y N Y • •
leadership; school culture; and teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and concerns
(McGee III, 2006)
Individuals and leadership in an Australian secondary science 7-
• ? Y N ? •
department: A qualitative study. (Melville et al., 2007) 12
Metaphorical duality: High school subject departments as both 7-
• ? Y N ? •
communities and organizations. (Melville & Wallace, 2007) 12
The role of the science co-ordinator in primary schools. A survey of K-
• Y ? N N •
headteachers' views (Moore, 1992) 5
Teacher leadership (in)action: Three case studies of contrasting schools K-
? Y N ? •
(Muijs & Harris, 2007) 12
Instructional leadership for quality learning (Pansiri, 2008) 5-7 • N Y N N • •
Teachers in middle level schools: Implications and recommendations
5-9 • Y Y N N • •
from a National Study (Petzko, 2002)
Findings and implications of the NASSP National Study of Leadership
in Middle School Levels, Volumes I and II: Teachers in middle schools 5-9 • ? Y N ? •
(Petzko, 2004)
Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective 9-
• • Y N N N •
(Printy, 2008) 12
When Teachers Work to Use Progress Monitoring Data to Inform
K-
Literacy Instruction: Identifying Potential Supports and Challenges • Y Y N Y •
1
(Roehig et al., 2008)

17 “NA” refers to grade levels were not specified in the study.
18 “Other” refers to other subject areas that were a focus of teacher leader work (e.g., literacy); “NA” refers to teacher leader work that did not have a subject-specific focus (e.g., engaging in whole
school reform).
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 9
© Education Development Center April 2010
Table 2 Continued: Administration Practices by Teacher Leaders – Intervention Characteristics
Teacher Leader
Subject20 Intervention
Work
G ins C M S
rade levels 19 Math Science Other NA Full description voluntary Involvement Teacher leader involved STEM faculty involved Researcher(s) tructional prograLeadership of administration ollaboration with anagerial practic administrators hared work with
Study m e

Content is the subject: How teacher leaders with different subject K-
• • N Y Y Y •
knowledge interact with teachers (Manno & Firestone, 2006) 12
Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools
4-7 • Y Y N Y •
(Ruby, 2006)
9-
Principals and teachers leading together (Ryan, 1999) • Y N N N •
12
Theme and variations: One middle school’s interpretation of mandated
6-8 • • Y N N N •
action research. (Sheridan-Thomas, 2006)
The practice of leading and managing schools: Taking a distributed
K-
perspective to the school principal’s work day (Spillane & Camburn, • Y ? N N •
12
2006)
Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying
and activating resources in an undervalued school subject (Spillane et 2-5 • Y ? N N • •
al., 2001)
Forms of Capital and the Construction of Leadership (Spillane et al.,
K-5 • N Y N N •
2007)
Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district:
K-
Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. • N Y N Y • •
12
(Swinnerton, 2007)
Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school culture
K-5 • Y ? ? N • • •
(Vesilind & Jones, 1998)
The instructional cabinet and shared decision making in the Pittsburgh 9-
• Y Y N N •
Public Schools: Theory, practice and evaluation (Wallace et al., 1990) 12
Oregon mathematics leadership institute project: Evaluation results on
K-
teacher content knowledge, implementation fidelity, and student • Y N Y Y •
12
achievement (Weaver & Dick 2009)

19 “NA” refers to grade levels were not specified in the study.
20 “Other” refers to other subject areas that were a focus of teacher leader work (e.g., literacy); “NA” refers to teacher leader work that did not have a subject-specific focus (e.g., engaging in whole
school reform).
MSP Knowledge Management and Dissemination 10
© Education Development Center April 2010