Listserv Archives

Dear Teachers Network Leadership Institute (TNLI) MetLife Fellows:

It’s time once again to begin our TNLI monthly listserv reading program—-in order to make the most out of our connection as a national group, and also help ensure we all stay up-to-date on relevant field literature. Given everyone’s time constraints, you’ll be happy to know that we try our hardest to keep these readings as manageable as possible, directly applicable to our work, and provide you with an attachment of the article.  

Just as we have done in past years, TNLI listserv discussions will run from November through May (so you’re not particularly overwhelmed at the beginning or end of the school year). During each month, a different affiliate will “host” the conversation—and one fellow from that affiliate will serve as moderator throughout that month to help prod and cajole the conversation and elicit as much participation as possible. Please remember that the TNLI listserv serves as our major forum for discussion as a national group—so while you may feel hesitant at first to chime in, the whole point is to share amongst ourselves, learn from each other, and advance “the teacher’s voice” by representing teachers throughout the country.

New York City will host the November listserv reading and discussion. Our moderator will be TNLI MetLife Fellow Greta Hawkins and the reading will be: "Overcoming the Obstacles to Leadership” by Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson (Educational Leadership, Sept. 2007). The article is attached to the e-mail or you can also find it by clicking on http://teachersnetwork.org/tnli/tnli_readings_resources.htm.

In an effort to get to know each other better, please sign with your full name and city of your affiliate when posting to the national listserv. Please join us in supporting Greta in getting this November reading and discussion off to a great start! 

Ellen, Peter, and Anna
New York City
10/30/07

Hi everyone!

My name is Greta Hawkins, a fellow in the New York affiliate and the moderator for this month's discussion. I teach at MS 113 The Ronald Edmonds School in Brooklyn, NY, and was appointed this past month as Lead Teacher in Special Education.

Of the teachers licensed in special education, I am the one with the least seniority. I am also the first to hold the title of Lead Teacher in the school's history. As you can imagine, the article under discussion this month resonated a great deal with me.

The article is "Overcoming the Obstacles to Leadership" by Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson (Published in Educational Leadership, September 2007). If you haven't had the chance to read it, please do so at your earliest convenience.

http://teachersnetwork.org/tnli/tnli_readings_resources.htm

There are many layers to this article. I'll pose a brief outline of the ideas, followed by a few questions.

Johnson and Donaldson interviewed some 20 teachers who had assumed roles as teacher leaders. Their findings? These teachers faced many challenges, a number of these unforeseen. The difficulties, the authors concluded, were largely due to a teaching culture that valued:

1. egalitarianism (how can you, my peer, possess expert knowledge or presume to act on it?)
2. seniority (Why didn't I get that job? I've been doing this for 18 years)
3. autonomy (A school's teachers union representative told one teacher leader that she could not "evaluate or make judgments, good or bad, on teachers or teaching practice")

Two additional factors contributed to the challenges faced by these teacher leaders:
1) their roles were not well defined
2) there was a lack of support from administrators at their schools

Questions for discussion:

The authors throw out a challenge at the end of their article – ALL educators, whether they are administrators, principals, teacher leaders and teachers themselves should work to redefine the norms of teaching and support teacher leaders. A much-easier-written-than-done challenge, I believe. But, still a valid one. The question? How can we do this, how can we redefine norms of teaching?

A secondary question, who or what is missing in the group to whom they address the challenge? They write "all educators." But how and why might other "missing" groups, individuals, or institutions assist in redefining norms of teaching? Or can they?

I look forward to hearing from you throughout the month.

Greta Hawkins
New York City
11/1/07

My name is Holly Link, and I am an English language development resource teacher in a two-way immersion elementary in San Francisco. As a “second-stage” teacher leader at my school, I found this article to be provocative in the way it frames the experience of
teacher leaders through the context of traditional teaching norms. The task or challenge the article ends with brought up a number of questions and issues I believe schools need to address in order to overcome obstacles to leadership in schools.

First, I wonder how NCLB and the emphasis on high-stakes testing plays out in the interactions teacher leaders have with faculty in their schools. I propose that resistance categorized under autonomy and/or seniority norms might be more related to teacher buy-in of the work teacher leaders are trying to accomplish, particularly if the ultimate goal is to ensure that as many students as possible reach proficient level on standardized tests. Within our school district, this is, in fact, the goal of reading coaches in many schools. Much of the resistance I have observed is resistance to political agendas and hierarchical mandates that don’t address essential needs of schools in terms of resources and support.

I was concerned with the fact that, in the article, the authors write that teacher leaders are “asked to improve their colleagues’ instruction.” If I were a veteran teacher and were told that the teacher leader at my school would help improve my instruction, I would definitely feel threatened. Would it not be more appropriate to frame the work a teacher leader does to a role of facilitating collaboration and inquiry into classroom practice, and providing teachers with time and resources needed to improve student achievement?

I believe that if schools or districts are to use teacher leaders effectively, they need to identify models in which teacher leader programs are successful and have buy-in from faculty and administration. Also, schools need to have conversations among the staff and with the administration in which “the big game plan” is discussed and outlined for all. I
hypothesize that if this is done, there will less of a need to redefine traditional norm of teaching. They might start to redefine themselves. I’m curious to hear what others think.

Great article, Greta!

Holly Link
San Francisco
11/1/07

Hello All,

Holly, you brought up some interesting questions from the article. I would like to respond and share some thoughts on teacher leaders. Being that it is the day after Halloween (not a good day for a kindergarten teacher in urban Los Angeles), I may not make any sense, but here goes. Holly asked: "Would it not be more appropriate to frame the work a teacher leader does to a role of facilitating collaboration and inquiry into classroom practice, and providing teachers with time and resources needed to improve student achievement?”

I think it would be more appropriate to view a teacher leader's role in that capacity, but that is not always the case.  In Los Angeles, where we have out of the classroom "second stage" Literacy Coaches, the term coach sometimes is interpreted as someone that comes into a classroom to model, teach, and monitor the use of a particular reading program.  Rather than focus on the teaching, the focus is on the implementation of a program.  Making sure that a teacher is using the program correctly is seen as a guarantee that students will succeed.

I am not saying that is the case in most literacy coaching in Los Angeles, but like the article states, many teacher leader positions are ill define and very vague, left up to interpretation of either the coach or the administrator. I have seen incredible math coaches work with teachers to develop, refine, and reflect on lessons and strategies. They help facilitate and assist teachers in analyzing data and construct learning experiences that benefit students and improve practice. I have also worked with a math coach that did not attempt to come into classrooms unless a teacher specifically hunted him down and was often seen in his office playing computer games. What I am saying is in my experience, teacher leaders tend to vary depending on the personality, skill, and initiative of the individual teacher. 

The article shared experiences that "second stage" teacher leaders have had at their school sites, but what I found lacking was the accountability of those out of the classroom teacher leaders. Some stated that they only went to the classrooms of the teachers that welcomed them and avoided or did not work with the teachers that did not. If I only chose to work with the students in my classroom that wanted to learn and did not pay attention to those that didn't seek or want my help, I would be held accountable. Is there something that we can still offer those resistant?

Some teachers may be more challenging than others to work with, but I would like to believe that all teachers want their students to achieve and would be open to new ideas or collaborating with others to become more effective. What I found missing from the article was that there was little or no mention of the importance of building trust and earning the respect of those you are "leading." I have taught for over 20 years and worked with many leaders.  I try to start with an open mind and let the work and actions of the new administrators, teachers, coaches, etc., speak for themselves.  As a teacher leader that is not currently at "second stage"-does that mean that stage one is in classroom, I find that the most essential elements needed to be any kind of teacher leader is having the credibility, trust, and respect of those you will be working with. This does not happen instantly. It takes time to build. This is a concern because the teacher leader/coaches are usually assigned to a school and stay for a short period of time. How can that bring about any sustained change?

Holly said: “I believe that if schools or districts are to use teacher leaders effectively, they need to identify models in which teacher leader programs are successful and have buy-in from faculty and administration.”

Buy in. Instead of the administrator choosing the teacher leader, could it be a more collaborative selection process? Is it a good idea to "promote" from within or to go outside the school? I always wondered if I would be a more effective instructional leader at my school site or starting fresh at another school with no history. Any thoughts on that one?

I know this is one article, but the last point I want to bring up (I promise!) Is that I was a bit offended that the article focused mostly on teacher leaders as educators that have left the classroom. There are many teacher leaders that remain as full-time classroom teachers, influence policy both at the school and outside, and work collaboratively with colleagues to improve practice and student learning. = )  I just had to get that off my chest... as a classroom teacher, ... who knows many classroom teachers that are also leaders while still a "stage one" teacher. Thanks for listening.

Have a great weekend everyone,
Jane Fung
Los Angeles
11/2/07

Hi,

I'm Kate O'Hagan and I'm a first year fellow in New York City. I teach in a self-contained classroom in junior high school (most subjects) and also teach math to a second class. One element that I've gotten from the reading and the discussion thus far is that the role of a teacher leader seems to need clarification. How are teacher leaders different from coaches?  Are they different from coaches? What are the specific outcomes that we hope to obtain by using teacher leaders in our schools? I think that some of the resistance outlined in the article may be a result of teachers continuously being told that there is some new approach or panacea that must be tried. We seem to be constantly reinventing the wheel rather than building the car. I think that the teachers in the building need to understand and accept the goals of the teacher leader for a positive and sustained change in practices to occur. 

I also believe that teachers sometimes suspect that the lead teacher has been given an agenda or script to follow by the administration that put them in place and that this agenda is tied to positive testing outcomes as opposed to building life-long learners. Jane raised the idea of collaborative selection of teacher leaders and I think this might make teachers in the school more receptive to working with their teacher leaders. Perhaps this goes to Greta's question about who else needs to be involved. Maybe teacher and parent representatives need to be a part of the equation, along with administration, in choosing lead teachers. 

Holly asked if it might be more appropriate for teacher leaders to take the approach of being collaborators and facilitators. This is the part of the article that resonated with me because that is how I'd want a leader to work with me. However, in the article, it almost seemed that seniority was equated with antiquity and I think this generalization is too broad. I have been part of two schools where the senior teachers have been the driving force behind improving better practices and in fact, have used the security of "seniority" to advance needed protocols and processes with administrators; in a way that new teachers don't always feel secure in doing.   

As for redefining the norms of teaching; coming from a school system that has been in a state of flux and reorganized continuously since I joined it just over four years ago, I'm wondering if there are even really "norms" anymore in the New York City area. When speaking with colleagues it seems that seniority here comes with the concern that two new teachers can be hired for the same price and autonomy really only seems to exist if you drive up those standardized test scores. Perhaps, for lead teachers to be most effective, they need to have the ability to guide teachers to more effective practices but also be in a position to have a meaningful voice with the faculty and/or administration. I think that teachers look to lead teachers (because of the word "lead") to communicate to administrations what changes need to be enacted on behalf of the teachers to help them adopt and adapt these new practices successfully. I also believe that teachers sometimes feel disappointed by the lead teacher who is not in a position to accomplish this. In the end, I want a lead teacher who can help me "work smarter" and I think that teachers sometimes equate the presence of a lead teacher in their classroom as meaning that administration feels they should be working harder.

On that note, I'm off to do my report cards.

Looking forward to reading everyone's point of view.

Kate O’Hagan
New York City
11/2/07

I don’t know if you’ll be able to access this link or not—you may have to “join up” with Teacher Magazine (it’s free!):

http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2007/10/24/09tln_jones_web.h19.html?print=1

To me, this essay says it all about what it means (or should mean!) to be a teacher leader.
Gail Ritchie
Fairfax County
11/2/07

Hello everyone!

I believe the article on Teacher Leaders is so on target in addressing the problems of the role. My name is Maureen Connelly and I was part of the original group that became Lead Teachers in District 9 in New York City four years ago. The program was conceived and established by a group of concerned parents: their concern was the turn-over of teachers in low performing schools in District 9. These parents worked with the Region to establish the program. 36 teachers were hired by a committee (admin
and parents) and were placed in 10 schools. These teachers received support and training......and still do......from a central level. The mission of the lead teachers was and is to provide support to classroom teachers: we remain in the classroom for 1/2 day, and
the other 1/2 is spent in support of teachers in the classroom or meeting with them and planning. While the goals of this program were clear, as it has played out in different schools and with different administrators it does indeed look different. As I talk with colleagues, some of them are very involved with administrative details. That was not the way the program was envisioned.

For me the critical piece referred to in the article is this: "Fundamentally, the success or
failure of teacher leaders will depend on their relationships with their colleagues". During the first year of the program my time was basically spent building relationships on a grade level.....creating a spirit of trust so that people would share a good idea. For me also, it is valuable to still be in the classroom: I share the pressures and concerns of the
teachers I am supporting. I am doing what I am suggesting that they do.

Administration is slow to accept the role of Teacher Leader. I suspect they are a little afraid of it. But my colleague and I work around that and help teachers (as they ask) in whatever ways we can. We have been assigned to support specific teachers new to
a grade level......and that seems to be less threatening to the staff. Sometimes our support is purely informational, sometimes it involves modeling, sometimes planning.

Since the NYC program has gone city-wide, individual principals can choose to have the program or not. It is expensive because it involves hiring another teacher, since two teachers are sharing a class. Even though in my school the program is not
functioning as it was originally designed, we have been able to work around those difficulties and assist people that want to learn and be more effective. And my co-Lead Teacher and I are learning from these teachers, too, and hopefully we are becoming better
educators.

Maureen Connelly
New York
11/3/07

Maureen,

I'm glad that the parents in your district were so proactive and made a real change. You said that the program began 4 years ago. Do you have the data of how many teacher leaders remain at the schools they were hired at 4 years ago? Spending that first year building relationships with the teachers you work with is vital. Are you still at the same school? The problem with some of our coaching/leadership positions in LAUSD is that the people change and often in the middle of the year. In the last 3 years, our school has had a different literacy coach (given to us by the district) each year, with one leaving in the middle of the year and replaced by another. How does that build trust and respect among teachers?

How long do teacher leaders stay at one school? Anyone out there with experience care to share?

Take Care,

Jane Fung
Los Angeles
11/3/07

Hello all,

School culture must be set up to sustain the idea of teacher leaders. If a school has a culture of collaboration and continuous learning, teacher leadership can be successful. 
 It is really about empowerment. Do teachers see themselves as life-long learners? Who do teachers feel they can and should learn from? Is there time given in a school for professional development, intervisitation, and collaborative work times? Does all of the information come directly from the administration or is it developed in teams? Do teachers buy-in to their school, do they feel invested and motivated internally or because they 'have to'? 

The culture is set by the administration and therefore the administration must be willing to foster an environment where teacher leadership can flourish. One of my favorite examples of this is in a school of I principal I know. In her school every teacher is an 'expert' on something. There is a sign over the door of every teacher that says, "I am an expert at _____________.  If you have a question about ________ or want to see good _________ in action come and see me." The principal further supports this by covering teachers' classes herself when teachers want to visit each others' classrooms or meet.
Teacher leadership needs to grow out of a learning community rather than a principal choosing one teacher leader and saying this is the expert. Teaching is a profession and must be treated as such. Teacher leadership therefore is not an individual title but a mindset.

Julie Reed
New York City
11/3/07

Hello,

I'm a 5th grade Special Education teacher in my 3rd year teaching in the Bronx, NY. While I agree with Julie's argument that teaching needs to be treated as a true profession in order for teacher-leadership to be effective and vice versa, I'm wary of the role politics plays in teacher leadership. In the article, "rookie" teachers mention that they only consider taking a leadership position after it has been offered to their veteran and colleagues and they've turned it down. That way the "rookie" teacher feels they've avoided some of the resentment from veteran colleagues that traditionally follows leadership appointments. This is interesting to me, as a 3rd year teacher, because I have been in many similar situations. Every opening/position must be posted in the office and there is a window of time in which to submit one's resume and letter of intent to the principal. The principal then 'evaluates the candidates' and chooses the best teacher for the position, per the job description. Unfortunately, if a "rookie" teacher is given the position (hopefully earns the position); there is inevitably resentment towards that teacher.  

Regardless of one's experience, there seems to be resentment toward teacher leaders within a school because it is the only version of "promotion" or hierarchy that we have within the teaching profession. Everyone is paid the same and has the same contractual
rights, so the only version of "promotion" is a leadership position.

Why is there such a feeling of competition among professionals who are supposed to be working together for the children? Even in my school, which is known for its collaborative efforts among the staff, there is a level of resentment/competition from other teachers when someone is appointed to a leadership position.

Perhaps this feeling of competition and/or resentment stems from the lack of theory that Julie described. If the administration treats every teacher as an expert, would that change the relationships among teachers?

Vanessa Jones
New York City
11/3/07

Hi All,

I teach 5th grade CTT at PS 10 in Brooklyn. I often think how lucky I am to have taught
in a CTT environment for two years. Everyday, I get to see another person teach, and to have another person observe me teaching. This gives me the opportunity to receive constructive criticism on my own teaching practices on pretty much every lesson. This two-teachers-in-the-classroom setup has done wonders for my teaching practice.

As I consider my improvement, however, I do think that it occurred more from observing
another teacher teaching than from being observed and criticized, (either positively or
negatively). When I watch someone else, I do it from a safe perspective. I see what works
and I try it on my own. When someone is watching me, I can feel one of two ways. If I trust the person watching me, I can accept criticism. If I don't, I can't. Which brings me back to the article and the issue of teacher leaders in general. It seems that the role of teacher leaders is generally to go into the less experienced teacher's classroom and provide support to that less experienced teacher. (Occasionally, I hear something about modeling, but I have never heard of a lead teacher actually doing this!) My idea for a lead teacher would be to continue teaching and have the less experienced teachers visit them in their classrooms and observe. Why pull the master teacher out of the classroom where that teacher is being effective?

Deborah Van Doren
New York City
11/4/07

I agree with a salient point that Deb Van Doren raises. Why is the only ladder of success for teacher-leaders vertical and away from the classroom? It would be obvious to others I believe, to leave successful teachers in the classroom where others may visit them and mold their practices into their own classrooms.

I know from time to time, I have seen successful (not completely of the criteria for measurement) teachers be offered faculty positions at universities working with student teachers, be placed in pseudo -supervisory roles in terms of instructional coaches (NYC applicable) or removed from the school completely to work at the district or city level. So the concern remains, why are the successful teachers pulled further and further down the educational continuum away from the classrooms where the children in highest need no longer have them?

S. Zimmerman
New York City
11/4/07

While it is absolutely important to keep master teachers in classrooms, the structuring of lead teachers seems right, in that some of their periods are spent outside the classroom working with the teachers to expand their practices. In my short career, two teachers have been asked to observe my practices by administration. Both teachers had questions that required follow-up time when we were away from teaching and both teachers instituted some of the practices they observed without the same level of success that I had. When they reached this point, it would have been helpful for me to have observed them using my methods to see why the practices didn't work in their room, or perhaps to clarify some part of what I did that I hadn't successfully modeled or that they hadn't successfully translated in their application. I am not a lead teacher, so this level of involvement didn't happen but I think that lead teachers must be able to do follow-up with teachers.  Otherwise, when teachers try to implement something they've seen and it doesn't work, they become frustrated and abandon it, thinking it can't work in their classroom and this will set up the idea of, "Why bother?" It seems to me that the goal is to have lead teachers help in the formation of more master teachers, so their short-term loss of time in the classroom ends up being a long-term gain for the children, because they help teachers become even better in their practices.
Kathleen O’Hagan
New York City
11/4/07

In response to Vanessa Jones questions about the number of Lead Teachers that remain. When the Lead TeacherProgram began 36 teachers were hired. Of the original 36, 10 remain today. They remain at the schools in which they began. For the 26 that are no longer Lead Teachers the reasons are varied: moved away from the city, took other educational positions, moved into administrative positions, did not want the responsibilities of lead teacher. One of the problems in the model that is used in New York is that two teachers share a classroom and in most instances there is not any kind of "matching process" that takes place. So to be honest there have been some difficult
situations in which the two teachers were unable to work together.......in which case one of them moved on to another position. The Academy for Educational Development studied the NYC Lead Teacher program for two years and submitted a report which I am sure is available should anyone be interested in it. There are certainly challenges in this model, but I would say that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Maureen Connelly
New York City
11/4/07

One would hope that a lead teacher is, at the very least, an accomplished teacher, since you can't very well assist other teachers to develop into something you have not achieved yourself. Under the best conditions, it takes three years of classroom experience to learn the fundamentals of this craft, much less to become truly accomplished. If the principal is selecting as a lead teacher a 'rookie' with a couple of years of experience, one has to question the merit of the selection. If that person is the best teacher in the school, then that school needs a real infusion of accomplished teachers from the outside. In the original conception of the lead teacher, the idea was to attract and retain accomplished teachers to a school that was short of them. 

Leo Casey
New York City
11/4/07

I understand that a "rookie" teacher should not be a lead teacher for the reasons Leo stated. I'm referring to leadership positions in terms of participating on committees, the data inquiry team, etc. It often seems as though less experienced teachers are on these committees partly because many of them (at my school) do not have children yet and are able to stay after school and participate, and many veteran teachers do not show an interest in such positions.

I too am perplexed by the notion of accomplishment within the teaching profession. A teacher is commended for their excellent work by being removed from the classroom and many teachers aspire to out of classroom positions. While I understand the need for mentorship, why is it that the out of classroom positions are the most desired and given to the best teachers who could effect more children and set a standard for excellence within a classroom?

Vanessa Jones
New York City
11/4/07

This has been an interesting exchange. For the most part I've followed a discussion that frames leadership within the definition created by an institution (NYC Schools etc.) or somehow structured by the administration. I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about "leadership" as a feature of the work of educator or the life of "citizen educator." That is, what about department chair, grade level lead teacher, textbook advisory, literacy steering committee, teacher association rep, city council, etc. For whatever reason, beyond those small schools or rural schools where teachers function as part time administrators, the traditional dichotomy persists. For the leadership of teachers as teachers, the system needs to be flatter, more democratic and everyone's work more highly valued and consequently more highly paid. Schools modeled after CPESS (Central Park Elementary and Secondary) and Coalition of Essential Schools and New Technology Schools have a much flatter structure, I think, and teacher as leader is a shared governance thing when the schools are smaller and the work is spread out.

I'm sure other folks have other views,

Janet Hecsh
Sacramento, CA
11/4/07

"One would hope that a lead teacher is, at the very least, an accomplished teacher, since you can't very well assist other teachers to develop into something you have not achieved yourself.” At my school, this lies at the heart of the problem. We do not have lead teachers because the principal pays for our mentors/coaches; however, our mentor coaches are not accomplished, at least for our students/classrooms. Frequently, when they lead classes to show us what to do, students are rude, unruly, or sleeping.  This makes it difficult to take what they tell us seriously. This situation also makes it difficult for lead teachers to develop in the school. 

I would add that lead teachers must be accomplished classroom teachers AND have the ability to help other teachers develop their own skills. A practice that one lead teacher uses may not work as well for other teachers.  Teaching in some ways is an art a craft, and it can be very individual.  Just as there is no one solution for all students, there is no one solution for all teachers to develop. 

Tara Redican
New York City
11/4/07

Vanessa Jones wrote: “While I understand the need for mentorship, why is it that the out of classroom positions are the most desired and given to the best teachers who could effect more children and set a standard for excellence within a classroom?”

I would argue that not all the best teachers are given the out of the classroom positions. There are many ways to define teacher leaders, some out of the classrooms, some in the classrooms. Maybe it's generational. At the NCTAF conference this past summer, one of the presenters talked about the teachers in the profession. Years ago, I'm not sure when, she mentioned baby boomers, but who knows, teaching was seen as a life long profession, where you entered as a teacher and your retired as a classroom teacher. There have been many changes in society as well as opportunities in the profession. So what the presenter said was that teachers entering the profession now don't see themselves in the classroom for a career. The want to start in the classroom, but have plans to try out different positions within education, not necessarily as a classroom teacher. My former student teacher asked me what the next step was for her after she had completed her masters and had taught for 4 years. So she decided on National Board Certification, while another student teacher that same year is now in an administrative program. Many options are out there, and I see less new teachers coming into the profession thinking they will remain classroom teachers past 6-10 years.  Anyone see that as a trend?  I mean, how appealing is it to start and finish a career in the same position? But then it brings up an entire new discussion on teacher career ladder...

Okay, I have to plan now.
Happy Sunday,
Jane Fung
Los Angeles, CA
11/4/07

Good evening,

This has been a lively and illuminating discussion thus far. Thank you for participating. You have helped make the task of moderator enjoyable. I've merged all our dialogue into one E-mail (see below) and have tried to encapsulate some of the major arguments raised thus far and have provided a title for each. Thanks for allowing me to "edit."

First, some points for clarification:

Teacher leaders, as defined in the article, include coaches, lead teachers, any teacher asked by administrator to pilot a program or curriculum where other teachers are given assistance.

In NYC, the title of "Lead Teacher" comes with a bonus of $10,000. Coaches are not given additional compensation. Also in NY, Lead Teachers teach a minimum of 10 instructional periods. Other teachers are invited to come and observe these lead teachers "model" effective practices. Some coaches, not all, teach/model classes as well.

Please continue to address any of the arguments raised thus far or address these two questions:

1) Some comments thus far have questioned the need to identify specific individuals as teacher leaders, and that all teachers should be viewed as experts. Is this a valid argument? Why or why not?

2) We are all members of a leadership institute. What role should we play, if any, in supporting the notion of teacher leaders in our individual schools? What benefits, if any, can result from our involvement, whatever that may be?

Greta Hawkins
New York City
11/4/07

One of the toughest professional decisions I ever made was to give up my own classroom to take on a teacher leadership role full time. Up until then, I was devoting much time and energy to my own students at the same time I was being asked to take on more and more leadership roles. Oftentimes, these roles required me to leave my own students in the care of a substitute teacher, a trade-off with which I was never entirely happy. Also, I had to spend nights and weekends planning, since that was the only free time I had. In other words, I had no life outside of teaching, a very unhealthy way to live for a prolonged period of time. As a previous posting noted, and I ardently agree, the need for flexibility regarding follow-up makes it difficult to be a "lead" teacher and a full-time classroom teacher simultaneously. In my district, we are beginning to fund full-time, on-site at one school, instructional coaches. Through this role, I can co-plan, co-teach, model, mentor, write grants, provide resources, "cover," help with data analysis, be a catalyst for change . . . The list of potential roles for a full-time coach goes on and on. The key, as another previous posting noted, is to build a relationship of trust. I may know a lot, but if my colleagues do not trust me and my expertise, then I'll get nowhere with them.

One final point. The instructional coach is not a supervisor. S/he is a peer, whose main responsibility is providing ongoing, job-embedded professional learning. Not "fixing" what's broken, but taking what's good and making it great. Not telling people what to do, but mediating their thinking so that they can tap into their own creativity and expertise. Not imposing new instructional strategies, but providing the "safety net" and/or scaffold for teachers who do want to try out new ways of teaching. Etc., etc., etc.

While teachers are conferencing with parents, I'm researching math enrichment (at their request), co-planning a professional learning session on readers' workshop with the reading teacher, meeting with the principal, reviewing test data, and the list goes on. I would never have the time to do all these things if I still had the responsibility of my own classroom. And that brings me to one final point. Sadly, I cannot affect my own classroom full of students, since I don't have my own classroom full of students. However, I can affect an entire school full of students (900+) when I work effectively with the teachers who are directly responsible for those students.

Gail V. Ritchie
Fairfax County
11/5/07

I agree with Julie: school culture is a huge part of being able to develop and sustain teacher leaders in a positive role in the school. I've done many readings over the past weeks as part of graduate coursework on school culture and climate, and if we are to establish a norm of teacher leadership, it is certainly something that must be built into our culture.

If a school has been built with a culture of collaboration and encouraged growth, the role of a teacher leader will be more readily accepted. If a school is built on isolation, teacher leaders can be seen as a negative force, the opposite of how they should be send. They will be seen as a threat or an intimidation, rather than a source of wisdom and knowledge. Furthermore, it is so incredibly important that the administrators see themselves as part of this building of school culture, and also emphasize the importance of knowledge and progression. When the administration continues to use teacher leaders as their own personal assistants or as someone to cover the gaps in coverage (such as various duties: cafeteria, bussing) than the rest of the staff will also see this position as nothing more than coverage.

They must set the environment in order for the rest of the staff to follow. Furthermore, when the administration takes teacher leaders seriously in their roles, they are more likely to feel appreciated and that their role is truly effecting change in the school. When this happens, leaders are less likely to leave with the frequency that Jane speaks of, and that is far too often the case in our high needs schools.

I think also that it is important for us, as Julie said, to think of ourselves as life-long learners. When we see ourselves as in a continual state of growth and progress, we are much more open to the suggestions and knowledge of not only teacher leaders, but also of our fellow colleagues. I REALLY liked the example that Julie set forth, where each teacher was a leader or knowledgeable about one area. Everyone is capable of feeling valued, collaboration is encouraged, and teacher leaders are able to flourish. The students benefit, because every teacher is in a constant state of becoming better, teaching better, learning new strategies, learning new skills.

Unfortunately, my experience thus far in the field has been that teacher leaders are often discouraged, whether it is formal or informal. The culture of the school did not allow for the leaders to flourish; instead, they were seen as a threat which must be "brought down" and personal or educational attacks were often made on the teacher leaders that I saw, or when anyone brought forth new ideas or questions in general. It is something that I hope we can change over time, because as I said earlier, having true teacher leaders benefit our students --- and that is our ultimate goal always.

Audra Vanderland
New York
11/10/07

Hi all,

I'm a computer teacher/technology coordinator in an elementary school in Brooklyn. My principal, for reasons that were both self serving but also somehow forward thinking at the same time, decided to give me a schedule that would allow me to half-time teach collaboratively in student classrooms with the classroom teachers while being a
traditional prep teacher/specialist the other half of my week. This essentially has put me in a part time "tech coaching" position where I feel I'm able to, in the course of trying to collaborate with teachers and also trying to insinuate myself into the "coaches circle," get a slightly more objective perspective on the dynamics of teacher leadership in my school.

What I see in my school is a mixed bag of good intentions, poor structure, mixed signals and wasted potential. As per the article, the coaching positions were created a few years back in NYC and implemented by our previous principal but without any real job
description or structure, the roles not being "well defined."

We've had 3 math coaches in my four years at the school (all working very differently in their positions) and 1 literacy coach. This year we have added a 'content coach' focusing on Science and SS as well as my pseudo tech coach position. There has never been, to my knowledge, a sit down or pow wow with the administration on what coaching is or
what the principal or system expects from a coach. Similarly, there has been no sit down with the classroom teachers to hash out what they might expect from a coach or how they would define the role themselves. As a result and as others have described in their posts
here, the quality of the coaching support has been explicitly dependent on the interior motivation of the individual in the position. One of our past math coaches spent most of her time designing posters for the church organization she belonged to while another one spent a lot of time planning daytime and afterschool workshops for teachers who were interested in improving their practice as well as modeling in classrooms, creating curriculum and streamlining communication. One of our current coaches is feeling
frustrated and embittered because she was given the position last minute before the school year started and has never had any training in coaching nor has she been given clear directives as to what's expected. Similarly, another new coach feels like a chicken running around without a head because she really doesn't feel she knows which
direction she's supposed to be headed in her position and she's someone who, by her nature, needs external and clear expectations. One of our other coaches is not trusted by the faculty as she has no charisma and has repeatedly proven herself to be an arbitrary
extension of administrative policy and not an advocate for teachers or their real needs in the classroom (she also hasn't been a classroom teacher for many, many years so is utterly disconnected from what is happening in the contemporary NYC classroom). One coach was put in her position for political reasons by the previous principal. I myself
have had no guidance and have not, on my own, been able to create the collaborative space with the classroom teachers to be an effective coach or collaborator. As I said earlier, a mixed bag - no rhyme or reason to the collection of personalities or the expectations for a coaching system.

So what does all that mean? What all my experience points to, in reviewing and reflecting on it in light of the article, is that the school culture is primary, as has been said before by other TNLI posters. And since public schools in NYC are generally not democratic
spaces that culture and environment is unfortunately created and maintained by the policies of the administration in the school. If the administration creates the structure/system by which a coach can work effectively in the environment of the school, then coaching, as a form of teacher leadership can work. That of course speaks to
administrative leadership. If teachers trust the administration, then by transitivity, they will trust the coaching structure. Teachers trust principal --> principal hires/promotes effective, motivated people into coaching position --> principal creates accountability
structure and feedback loop as well as collaborative space/facilitates interaction among faculty peers (sets clear expectations for relationships between peers in their positions, creates time for inter-visitations, creates incentives- whether it's per session $, extra preps or guaranteed student progress in subject area, etc.-for buying into coaching system, rewards participants who exploit the opportunities created by coach-teacher relationships, etc.) and, voila, coaching success.

I'm sure it's not that simple, but I think the formula can work in a functional administrative environment. I think if we as faculty (or consultation committee or teachers union or even PTA members) can make administration somehow accountable to creating a functional environment in our schools (administrative accountability for something other than student scores on tests), i.e. If we as teachers can push for competence and training for our administration in terms of human resource management and instructional/organizational leadership, the "obstacles to teacher leadership" as described in the article would become less frequent and less extreme. They wouldn't disappear completely, I'm sure (they never do even in the most effective organizations), but they would be reduced. Just as classroom teachers are expected to, and often succeed in, creating classroom environments that allow all students to succeed and collaborate, so can administrations.

Chris Peyser
New York City
11/11/07

I agree with Audra and Julie on the issue of school culture.

But questions:

How can we as teacher leaders help create a school culture that allows teacher leaders to be perceived in a positive light and sustains teacher leadership in a "positive role" in the school?

What tools do we have at our disposal to do so or do we just hope that that culture either exists or comes into existence on its own at our school?

Do we have a moral obligation, as teacher leaders, to actively champion a change in school culture and is it even possible to create such a change in a system so calcified? (maybe 'moral' is too dramatic - how about ethical?).

I and some fellow teachers at my school (whom I would definitely describe as teacher leaders though they are not coaches or lead teachers) struggle with these questions daily and have yet to figure out any satisfactory answers. Some days we are fired up and see
ourselves as teacher activists with plans to make the school a better place to work and other days we are exhausted and just want to get through the day and make it to 3pm. We have yet to organize effectively to make the 'big impact' school wide that we dream about.

Is it the nature of the education biz to exhaust, divide and conquer? Teaching is exhausting in and of itself. Trying to actively lead others is even more exhausting (in my pseudo coach position, I now better understand some of the difficulties in managing human resources in a school and have some sympathy for my principal).

Chris Peyser
New York City
11/11/07

This past school year, I was a coach/mentor/lead teacher at my school. I was originally teaching for years in our high school and when we expanded to open a middle school, in its second year, I was asked back to coach a staff of largely brand new teachers; 7 of them. I was also was the only staff member, outside the principal, to 'support' the administration in running the school, aside from our two office managers, and a gym teacher who ran our lunchroom and recess periods, and our counselor. Small school, South Bronx.
 
My full time job involved the following: individual/team coaching meetings, & informal observations & pre & post -observation meetings, small group curriculum development support, facilitating open dialogue and resolving conflicts between my principal and teachers, developing and running professional development, and acting as a dean or a support for 7th grade students that were removed from class for behavioral struggles.  The latter part of my position was a result of having new teachers on staff who weren't yet  effectively managing behavior in class--and it often kept me in my office resolving conflicts, calming kids, supporting teachers in resolving conflicts with kids, instead of doing my job as a coach. In addition, it created real stress for students when I showed up in class to observe teachers and the students thought I was observing their behavior, as dean. Bad idea to combine these roles.
 
The idea was the mentor would support the teachers, and so many of them believed if they got rid of the 'behavior' problems in class, then they'd be able to teach--I eventually, with the support of my principal, shifted out of the dean position in order to solely focus on staff support. The teachers understood.
 
Some teachers were eager and grateful for a coach; to plan together, to have someone observe, to hear ideas, though one or two, were more resistant. My position, because I worked closely with my principal in 'running' the school conflicted because some teachers did not agree with my principal, like her decisions, and yet I was 'reporting to her' on my meetings and observations. Some teachers, towards the end of the year, expressed frustration with this-- and I too personally felt an inability to be the mentor I wanted to be--Another bad idea as expressed in the article and echoed by Maureen: coaches cannot be 'part' of admin and evaluation.
 
The most effective way for me to coach was to give each teacher what they asked for. Some wanted support in planning, others in observing, others dialogue on specific kids, and others content or pedagogy. 
 
One of my original and ongoing frustrations was that my principal would not let me teach a class, even an enrichment or advisory class. I was and still am convinced that I needed to model--and that I couldn't truly model genuinely by running a lesson or two in someone else's classroom. My principal needed me to be more available to help 'run' the school.  But in the end, I was grateful for this stance because I don't know how I could have managed, in one day’s hours, both teaching my own class, and all the other duties I had. Our school was understaffed.  But in the end, in some way, no matter how many years of experience I had, and how much time I spent in our high school, some teachers were not as open to my advice and support because I did not understand their day to day reality--I was not teaching, and struggling, with kids/or in the same way they were. I didn't have my own class. And so, I returned to my original stance: I needed a class to model.
 
Effective teacher leadership is truly about a lot of trust. Teacher leaders have to rise from within communities, and be so called 'elected' by their peers, and be sought after by peers--and the teacher leader's loyalty needs to be to supporting the teachers in becoming the most effective teachers they can be for students--often in a form that the newer teacher invites. And the leader of the school needs to support teacher leaders in doing whatever is necessary to make themselves available, trusted, and desired for support by others. 
 
And having several teacher leaders, experts in varying areas, as described by an earlier post, is a model I see as probably being most effective.
 
Jennifer Davoli
New York City
11/11/07

My thoughts on Chris' questions below:

1. How can we as teacher leaders help create a school culture that allows teacher leaders to be perceived in a positive light and sustains teacher leadership in a "positive role" in the school? 

I think it is very difficult for teachers to create or at least initially mold the culture in their school as it really is the principal who sets the culture. Collaboration is really the key to accepting teacher leadership, so that everyone feels they have something to offer and it seems more of a team rather than a few selected individuals the administration chooses.  Without the opportunity for common preps, working lunches, planning times, professional groups etc. how will a collegial attitude permeate a school building? These things set a culture of collaboration and are very difficult to do without leadership to encourage and plan these kinds of interactions, but certainly not impossible. Once a culture of collaboration is established the idea of teacher leadership without resistance or resentment becomes not only easier but almost expected. 

What tools do we have at our disposal to do so or do we just hope that
that culture either exists or comes into existence on its own at our
school? 

The power or tools I think we do have as teachers is lending ourselves to collaboration and if it is not expected from the administration, showing that is expected by the teachers.  If a school does not have a building leader that empowers, than teachers can empower themselves by meeting on their own, sharing materials, and changing the tone from either isolated or simply social to collegial.

Do we have a moral obligation, as teacher leaders, to actively champion a change in school culture and is it even possible to create such a change in a system so calcified? (maybe 'moral' is too dramatic - how about ethical?). 

I agree with your implicit thought in this question that it is our moral obligation.  As teachers, sometimes we are all to often ready to pass the buck off to the school leader and not take ownership ourselves.  If we constantly plead that teaching should be treated like "a real-life-grown-up-profession" than we need to take initiative to make it so.  As I stated above, the initial framework for a school culture pretty much is set by the administrator, but from there teachers can and should mold their school into a community that they want to be an active participant in, and therefore will have a voice, will have the opportunity for teacher leadership, and can affect change. 

I think where we run the risk in any leadership position is the idea that one person has all of the answers.  This is common among coaches, principals, etc.  In many schools there are a select few who "have the knowledge" and the rest should go to them.  This in my opinion, creates the toxicity that is one of the pitfalls of teacher leadership.  The idea of empowerment promotes that everyone feels valued, feels that they have something to offer, and has ownership over their little piece of the world and therefore they buy into the bigger picture.  When you examine most professions outside of education today, you see this idea of a team permeating nearly every aspect of our economy.  The book, "Empowerment Takes More than a Minute" addresses this philosophy.  While it is a business book, there are many factors and ideas that can apply to education.  Another good book to read that addresses the issue in your question to a certain extent is "The Moral Imperative in School Leadership" by Michael Fullan.

Julie Reed
New York City
11/12/07

I think Chris posed some very interesting questions, and I think that our answers to his first question are some of the most important --- how can we create a culture that welcomes teacher leadership? I think it important to maintain a tone of respect when speaking with our colleagues, which seems common sense, but can easily be lost. When we offer suggestions in our leadership roles, we should also make sure that we continue to be welcome to questions and concerns, even when they are questioning us and the things that we have just taught or encouraged implementation of. By allowing others to be critical of us, as long as it is respectful constructive criticism, we allow for transparency and a welcoming attitude that means teachers will be more willing to approach us, rather than if we took a "This is how it is going to be done" attitude.

I think another way to encourage a positive culture that welcomes teacher leaders is to make sure that we are EARNING our position. This means staying up to date on all the latest and making sure that we teach others (teach, not tell) these new practices and methods. I have found a few cases of instructional coaches in schools that are disdainful/disrespectful, unwelcoming of questions or new ideas, or are generally not up to date and use research and methods from the early 90s -- or sometimes earlier -- even in areas where there have been major breakthroughs in the past five to ten years.

Do we have a compulsion to create this positive school climate? I think that we do, but I think that it can also be very difficult, especially when the forces of the administration or other teachers are against you. What do you do when creating change would bring you into the bad graces of the administration? When pushing for alternatives would alienate you from your coworkers? How do push for change when everyone around us is standing against it?

I also think that it is interesting that you bring up the issue of just getting through the day versus trying to be able to create this positive culture, be a teacher leader, and create change. It is something that I have also discussed in my graduate courses recently
--- the pedagogy of poverty, I believe it is sometimes referred to. In these high needs schools, with so many students labeled "at risk," we often have so much on our plate that just getting to 3:00 can be incredibly difficult. To create and push for the extensive overhauls that the school may need, or even to come up with ways to use the methods taught to us by teacher leaders... It can sometimes get to be too much. I'm not sure if I have a solution for this, except that we must try to remember the things that inspired us to go into these areas of high need, what our passions are, and use those passions to motivate us past the basic role we can take, and move into something more. That's a more theoretical and thought-based solution, though, and I'd be curious to see what more application-type solutions people could come up with to broach this problem that I am sure each of us face every day.

Audra Vanderland
New York City
11/12/07

Hello,

It has been interesting reading everyone’s posts this month. I had a non-traditional half teaching/half administrative position last year and I ran into many of the pitfalls discussed in the article. I work at a school now (small high school on the lower east side) with a relatively flat structure and there’s much less resentment and much more buy-in on the part of the teachers.

Chris wrote about a culture of trust in his post. He imagined that if the teachers trust the administration then the administration’s coaches might fare more effective with the teachers. One of our math teachers recently told me a funny story. He asked his coach to hold him accountable for submitting lesson plans. The two of them devised a completely ridiculous system whereby the math teacher gets an S or a U for the week on a chart that hangs in front of the principal’s desk. This just underscored for me what a supportive environment can look like. Clearly, my colleague is not concerned about the negative repercussions of the principal knowing that he had an unsatisfactory week. I tell you this to share that trust can exist in a school.

Four times a year my administration has a ritual where they confer with each staff member about his/her practice and ask him/her to reflect on the school’s values (a document we co-created at a staff meeting at the end of last year). One of our values is transparency. The school is transparent about its short-comings and actively seeks to fix them. There is nothing that’s off limits for conversation. If I want to ask about budget, that’s welcome. If I want to express my frustration that I’m not getting the support I need, that’s welcome too. I see that my administration is not out to get me. I feel comfortable sharing about my practice. My coach can be effective with me because I’m willing to use her support.

David Rothauser
New York City
11/12/07

Chris,

Great questions. I just wrote a post where I lauded my administration for their transparency. This value trickles down into the trusting relationships they create with their teachers. Ideally, it also trickles down into the trusting relationships teachers build with their students.

After reading this last post of yours I wondered whether or not it would have been possible for one or two lone teachers to build a school-wide culture of trust at my last school where top-down decisions were made frequently and many teachers’ voices weren’t heard. Transparency probably has to be valued by an administration in order to build trust among teachers. Just some thoughts...

David Rothauser
New York City
11/12/07

In response to Chris' queries, these are questions that I struggle to answer everyday as a literacy coach in a high poverty school in Brooklyn, New York. There's nothing that I want more than to work in an environment that supports learning on part of the staff and the students. We throw around the term "lifelong learning" in school settings but often times, I feel that some administrative agents work towards the exact opposite: stagnation and mediocrity. Learning requires change and change means moments of confusion and struggle and conflict. When an administration fears that a teacher leader is that agent of change, that person's work is not supported and may even be sabotaged. Even though the term "sabotage" sounds extreme, when doing professional development requires administrative help in terms of creating alternate schedules, creating coverages, asking for per session funding or purchasing material, lack of support is a clear and present danger.

So, changing school culture as a teacher leader might involve building relationships with like-minded individuals and using your collective power to try and shape administration. This is seemingly a slow process and when you feel like your daily work is neither supported nor appreciated, creating a vision for change in the long term might not be something that provides immediate personal fulfillment.

A few years ago, one of my colleagues said that no matter what, they keep fighting the good fight. I knew he had a tough time in his self-contained special education classroom as a first year teacher in a high poverty school with very few resources and even less administrative support. So I asked him, "How can you be so optimistic?" He replied that one day, all of the small steps he makes are going to add up to big change in the lives of his students. So I've adopted his philosophy to "get through the day" in an environment that is less than ideal. I do feel that I have an obligation to champion change in school culture. But I've realized that this process isn't overnight and I work really hard to see the small footprints in the work of my colleagues and our students to sustain my existence.

Amber Pabon
New York City
11/12/07

I’d like to weigh in on the school culture side of the teacher leadership issue with an ironic story. Many years back, at a school with a "high risk" population, I worked under an autocratic principal who turned her urges for total control to the task of training the
entire staff in facilitation and consensus building (talk about shooting yourself in the foot!). As a result, we had an empowered faculty who all took on leadership roles. Through the use of protocols for looking at student work we built a culture of collaboration at the school. When the principal finally left, we formed a committee and
hired a new principal who was truly a collaborator, overriding the superintendent's lame duck. Yes, it did take the impetus of a principal to get it going, but through the process of collaborating the teachers built momentum. Since then I have worked with other schools, teaching the collaborative protocols (see www.NSRFharmony.org for more information on protocols). I ran into teachers from one of the schools who were still meeting six years later and had expanded the group to include most of the faculty, with no principal
intervention. When we talk about buy-in and creating trust this model comes to mind because the process builds capacity. Once established it takes on a life of its own and can steer the administration instead of the other way around. There were only a few administrators in the district who were willing to work with my original school and those
were the ones who were supportive of our process. Currently I am working with a principal who was the former AP at my original school. Our staff is very isolated and we are trying to address that by releasing teachers for two periods at a time to participate in
protocols looking at student work. The first time we tried it eleven teachers participated throughout the day. All but one said it was a valuable experience and wanted to participate again. We are about to launch our second release day. I realize this is a very different take on leadership than what has been discussed before. However, sometimes
we need new models and interpretations to solve chronic problems.

Susan Gold
San Francisco
11/13/07

Your points resonate Chris, as my school responds to the "report card score" that came out and people within the building grapple with who are our leaders and what are their roles in trying to formulate positive ways to move forward in our teaching practices.
Interestingly, it seems that teachers sometimes see the role of leader as belonging to their colleagues who are perceived as best able to weather the resulting resistance or "heat" that may come from speaking out or up on behalf of some .  However, for them to be leaders, these same colleagues must want this role.

Is it incumbent on a teacher leader to try and effect change?  I think it is or we need to change the title from teacher leader to teacher facilitator.  People see responsibility as a dimension to leadership. I don't think that facilitator necessarily carries that same connotation.  Having said that, I think that it all goes back to what the definition of a teacher leader is.  Perhaps what people are looking for from "teacher leaders" goes beyond teaching practices and goes into effecting fundamental changes in the school culture. Therefore, teacher leaders are judged unfairly as "lacking" by their colleagues because this expectation is outside the parameters of what teacher leaders are supposed to do.  I think this influence on school culture by teachers was originally supposed to happen by having teacher members on the school leadership team and that didn't work out as hoped.

I will say, that some of my colleagues and I also struggle the way that you do, some days very excited about trying to create positive change to make the school better and then other days so tired that it is all we can do to get through the day.

Kathleen O’Hagan
New York City
11/16/07

Thus far it seems that the big arguments generated and questions raised by our TNLI national discussion from the Johnson and Donaldson articles are:

1. What and who exactly are teacher leaders?
2. Can't all teachers be leaders? Why the differentiation among colleagues?
3. Are teacher leaders generally individuals who accept and articulate the discourse of administrators?
4. Can teachers affect/contribute to/impact school culture?

And the following from teachers who are serving in the official capacity as "teacher leaders" and who shared their experiences:

4. Support from administrators is key
5. Clear communication of the roles of leaders is key
6. Buy in from fellow teachers is key
7. There is difficulty in navigating between roles of teacher and of leader.
8. There is difficulty in marrying the two roles, as outlined by Johnson and Donaldson.

Thanks thus far for the insightful comments, the questions, and the experiences. Keep them coming.

Greta Hawkins
New York City
11/16/07

FYI,

For the group members who have weighed in on culture, I found the article online and did a search on "culture." Here are the 6 references in the article. I lifted the sentences from the article itself. It would seem that Johnson and Donaldson raised and answered the same questions you did.

See #5. Defeatist tone or a realistic tone? What do you think?

Greta Hawkins

“Overcoming the Obstacles to Leadership,” by Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson

1. Teacher leaders need support to overcome stubborn barriers created by the norms of school CULTURE—autonomy, egalitarianism, and deference to seniority.

2. The schools in which they worked remained largely unchanged, with an egg-crate structure that reinforced classroom boundaries and a professional CULTURE that discouraged teacher leadership.

3. The following coping strategies often helped teacher leaders avoid provoking other teachers' fears, deflect opposition, and diminish tensions when they arose. But these strategies also tended to legitimize the traditional CULTURE of teaching and its norms of autonomy, egalitarianism, and deference to seniority.
(See article for the strategies listed)

4. In summary, the teacher leaders whom we interviewed coped with a traditional school organization and a teaching CULTURE that prized and protected norms of egalitarianism, seniority, and autonomy.

5. No amount of skill, enthusiasm, or determination in these teacher leaders could fundamentally change the structure of schooling or CULTURE of teaching.

6. Because school CULTURE is so crucial to the success of these roles, teachers must see the principal's practices and priorities as reinforcing a new set of norms that promote collaborative work, bridge classroom boundaries, and recognize expertise.

Conclusion reached Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson:
1. These findings suggest that, to reap the full benefits of teacher leadership, school administrators need to provide formal support structures and build leadership roles into the structure of the school.

2. But principals' efforts alone will not enable teacher leaders to succeed. Fundamentally, the success or failure of teacher leaders will depend on their relationships with their colleagues. Teacher leaders need professional development that prepares them to respond to colleagues' resistance respectfully while helping these teachers improve their practice.

Greta Hawkins
New York City
11/16/07

Good evening folks,

It has been particularly engaging to follow this month's conversation.

It seems like a good time to mention the work of Judith Warren Little (see her bio and work at http://www.tcrecord.org/AuthorDisplay.asp?aid=17512),  and Michael Fullan (The New Meaning of Educational Change and many other works on change).  Warren Little regarded "joint work" of teachers and the relationships between and among teachers within a framework of authentic professional development (by teachers, of teachers and for teachers) as being one of the most salient features of developing a persistent culture of continuous improvement---others have called this communities of practice (Lave and Wenger) an a predictor of improved student outcomes.  

This has been what folks like Anne Lieberman (http://sustainability2002.terc.edu/invoke.cfm/page/135) and Linda Darling Hammond have been talking about (along with many education researchers from the 80's golden age of school reform---progressive reform, I must say) for decades. Check out these folks and Andy Hargreaves too! Oh, don't forget the fantastic Seymour Sarason (http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1580_reg.html)

My mini-lit review wouldn't be complete without mentioning Larry Cuban's work (http://sustainability.terc.edu/index.cfm/page/406) or David Tyack's too (http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/utopia03012004.html)

OK...that's my 2 cents worth!!!

Janet Hecsh
Sacramento, CA
11/17/07

Hello all,

I have to agree with the suggested egg crate structure of school culture and see #5 as realistic. Having worked in public school classrooms for 12 years, I am at the point this year that I have had enough. Too much realism for me. I have been a department chair for 5 years (in the first 6 years of teaching) and declined to carry that further for all the paperwork, having to negotiate disagreements between teachers and/or teachers and administration, and parents. When I entered the profession, I already had 3 years of "student teaching" in which I participated in teacher exchange programs whereby I was a cooperative teacher. I was a bright eyed, naive, and eager 24 year old fresh out of grad school who was ready for my own classroom. My enthusiasm was promptly crushed in my first job, and I have worked ever since to promote the professionalism of teaching: to me this means all teachers are leaders and need to show these leadership skills. I continue to be disappointed in knowing that educational administration programs don't always encourage administrators to work cooperatively with teachers. This is not to say that all administrators follow the old line; I know many great ones are out there; I just seem to always run into the old liners. I am also disappointed in how journalism portrays teachers in the classroom. 

So, who am I as a teacher leader? Honestly, I'm not sure how to fully define, but I do know what I stand for and how I teach. As a teacher leader I continue to mentor other newbies with pleasure and react with smiles whenever I see their confidence blossom. I continue to do research in the classroom and it is my favorite activity I do for myself as well as to share with my profession. And, as a teacher leader I am convinced that all teachers need to back each other as professionals, cite each others' research, and stand against those practices we know that don't work in the classroom (like teaching to the test-- ugh!!). I think that it is time for us to be realistic about our leadership and our authority in the classroom, and look at what the system conveys to teachers, parents, students, and administrators. Quite a challenge I suppose, but who best to undertake the challenge but teacher leaders?

I am writing this late at night and I hope I have chosen the right words to convey my meaning.  Thanks all!

Heidi Willard
Fairfax County
11/17/07

Ideally, we would all be considered teacher leaders, as we all have areas of expertise. However, when schools are structured to engender competition, rather than collaboration, separations and hierarchies occur, and here lies the role of "teacher leader." I absolutely do believe that leadership roles should be created, but not without the proper support, not only from administrators, but also from colleagues; nor do I think such roles have to have to have this air of exclusivity, which they most often do.

When thinking about having teacher leaders in any school, it would seem that the most obvious place to start would be to have time carved out every so often for inter-classroom visits among teachers. This way, everyone will feel like a leader, with a body of knowledge, and if one colleague should be singled out for her/his skills, perhaps it would be less of an issue with other teachers. In my school, we approach our principal with this idea every few months, and while she seems to be on board, it never happens. Yet, when one colleague is "chosen" to become a coach in our school, everyone else seems bitter and confused:  "Why her?  Why him?  Why not me?"  I understand these are common reactions in all of our schools, but I'm not sure it necessarily has to be so. Again, we have to start with respecting each and every educator in our buildings as leaders. This, of course, goes back to school culture, and this question of whether or not teachers affect/contribute to/impact it.

So many of us are committed to creating classroom communities, but when it comes to school life outside of our individual classrooms, this is not so.  Granted, we cannot always get along with all of our colleagues, but I believe there is a larger issue at hand:  the role of competition in public education.  Now, instead of just being public school teachers who band together to keep neighborhood children in our schools (rather than charter schools, private schools, etc.), we have to fight to see who gets the "smartest" children in our classroom, so that we can benefit from merit-based pay initiatives.  How can we possibly begin to foster a school culture grounded in mutual respect (where we see one another as leaders) when we are constantly being pitted against one another?

This is yet another example of the disconnect between what goes on out there (policy world) with what goes on in here (school world).

Barb Golub
New York City
11/18/07

It has been interesting to read people's responses to "Overcoming the Obstacles to Leadership" while also reading the TNLI NYC discussion regarding  Mayor Bloomberg's  new initiative to find lawyers who can help principals fire teachers who have not yet gotten tenure.  Of all the things that Mayor Bloomberg could focus on and spend money on in terms of improving student achievement, why pour resources into a program that targets getting rid of teachers?  Instead, why not build programs in schools to support teacher leadership?  We seem to all be in agreement with the article that one major obstacle to teacher leadership is school culture and the values of autonomy, egalitarianism and seniority.  If this professional culture could be replaced with a culture that values collaboration, professional growth and leadership, it seems to me that Mayor Bloomberg's latest initiative would not be necessary.

To achieve this culture of collaboration, professional growth and leadership, I think teacher leaders need to be formally trained. I work at a small school where we are often called on to fulfill roles beyond our classroom teaching. This year I was asked to be team leader for my grade team, the chair of the ELA department and a mentor (all this is not due to my merits or years of experience, but rather to the lack of experienced teachers as my school). At first being asked to fill these roles was flattering, but lately I have felt simply overwhelmed and frustrated. Apparently, just because I can run a fairly effective high school classroom, does not mean I know how to mentor a struggling teacher who is at least ten years my senior. I am left resenting these additional responsibilities, which come with no extra pay and little appreciation. I am also left feeling like a failure in many ways. Perhaps I would be a good mentor or facilitator of adults, but I was put into this role far too quickly and given no training, mentoring or support in terms of how to fulfill the responsibilities of my job. There needs to be greater pay and good professional development for teacher leaders so that the jobs can be taken more seriously, and so that teachers are actually held accountable for the jobs they take on. 

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving.

Barbara Condliffe
New York City
11/23/07

While I agree with the majority of what Barbara posted, we have to be careful in not recognizing that there are some teachers who do a disservice to our profession, it is very hard to get rid of those teachers, and firing those teachers would increase student achievement. I have witnessed first hand teachers who should not be in the classroom and have observed the impact this has on the students in that teacher's classroom. If we want to be heard as a profession of teachers, we have to be transparent and honest with ourselves and with each other and not defensive. Many teachers compare our profession to doctors and lawyers in terms of the injustice and disparity in pay and treatment in terms of professionalism. If a doctor or lawyer commits the equivalent of ruining an entire year of education for a child, let's say causing a major health related complication in the case of doctor or not preparing fully for a case that causes their client to suffer in some way in the case of a lawyer, for all intents and purposes they would lose their job... shouldn't teachers have that same level of accountability? The hoops administrators have to jump through to fire incompetent teachers who are bad for kids are insurmountable. What happens in most cases is principals make a deal with the teacher to go somewhere else in lieu of a U because firing them and getting them out of the profession takes mountains of paperwork and often years of legal turmoil. Streaming the teacher accountability/firing process is good for kids and good for our profession.

Julie Reed
New York City
11/24/07

I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Julie! I think that teachers are too easy to jump on the defensive when such topics come out, eager to believe that they are "out to get us." But Julie makes excellent points—in no other profession would you be allowed to be less than prepared on a regular basis, and in no other profession would it be so difficult to get rid of someone who is doing a disservice to their clients. By allowing more transparency, we elevate the chances for people to hold us in high esteem by raising
the overall quality of the teaching profession, and lowering the amount of teachers who are simply "counting the days." I think we must try to look at BOTH sides of the coin and acknowledge a need for a combination of our two points—the support and abilities for
development that encourage teachers to become teacher leaders and to lower the burnout rates, promoting opportunities for teachers outside the classroom for those who wish to stay in the field but are simply "counting the days" when in the classroom, but also the ability to remove those who should be removed.

Audra Vanderland
New York City
11/24/07

I agree with Audra and Julie in terms of heightening transparency and elevating the level of professionalism by terminating teachers who have proven to be unproductive. I believe the reaction to such a legal team is natural because politicians, the media, and the public often don't appear to distinguish between those who are "counting the days" (unproductive teachers) and highly effective teachers. We are often all lumped into one entity, and therefore tend to have a group mentality.

My fear lies with the encouragement to terminate new teachers before they receive tenure. As an un-tenured teacher as well as an advisor to new teachers, it takes time, support, and trial-and-error to hone one's craft as well as to develop the confidence necessary to see oneself as a professional capable of making decisions for one's students. In my experience, the level of questioning of one's methods/theories/techniques from both administration, colleagues, and parents, can lead a new teacher to believe he/she is not a professional capable of making sound instructional choices for his/her students. Over time, with support, this can/should happen. Yet if we set out to terminate teachers before giving them this opportunity to develop, are we truly helping students and the profession of teaching?

Vanessa Jones
New York City
11/24/07

My name is Anne Looser. I teach self contained special Ed in the Bronx.

I agree bad teachers need to go. My biggest concern is about the process. If we want to compare teachers to doctors and lawyers, we need to take a step back and look at how these professions license and police themselves. Yes, there is government regulation, but the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association are made up of doctors and lawyers. Now, I am not sure how the AMA and the Bar work with government, but I know that the AMA and the Bar have a voice when it comes to removal of poor doctors and lawyers. As teachers we don't have an association that does this. In NY State, we have the union that defends us after it happens. I know other places have teachers unions, but there are a lot of places that have little to no union representation. They are at the whim of (potentially) only government officials when it comes to license sure and professional standards. This is a problem that must be addressed before we start talking about accountability and professional standards. Teachers should have a voice in setting professional standards (for accountability) the same way doctors and lawyers do. Until this happens in a real way, I am suspect of actions to remove "bad" teachers.

Also, I'd like to comment on Barbara's post about training lead teachers. I think the idea of lead teachers is a bit of a misnomer for a couple of reasons. First, it seems (based on my experience and this listserv discussion) that most of the time lead teachers are
simply extensions of administrators rather than true leaders. They get co-opted and/or bogged down by duties that only marginally relate to student/teacher growth. Second, once someone is designated "Lead Teacher" by the administration teachers start to distrust them – how did they get that job? Whose butt did he kiss? Did he rat someone
out to get the job? Will she rat me out? Thus, it is almost as if once someone is appointed a lead teacher, they lose (or can't use) the traits that made them a lead teacher in the first place.

Unfortunately our schools are dominated by egalitarianism, deference for seniority, and autonomy. These norms are what breed this distrust. I believe the best way to over come these norms is to work to become an organic leader. Rather than looking for validation from administrators, seek validation from the kids and other teachers.

The article "Leading by Standing Still" (posted by Gail Ritchie) shows an excellent example of this organic leadership by teachers. For me, this is a much more valid form of leadership than anything created by a principal or school district. People listen to her
because what she says is important and good. She is less likely to get bogged down or co-opted by administrators because she doesn't report to them in the same way lead teachers do.

But there is value in having systems to create and reward lead teachers. And I am not sure how to reconcile the two positions. It just seems like time after time, once someone becomes a "lead teacher," then they lose credibility with the kids and other teachers,
and I am not sure training alone fixes this. Perhaps it is a change in school culture (as others have discussed) or even a change in the culture of the profession.

Anne Looser
New York City
11/24/07

Hi Anne, I feel I must respond to your comments in the last post. I'm Jason Wagner, lead teacher and UFT chapter leader at Millennium Art Academy in the Bronx.

I appreciate your candor in discussing perceptions of lead teachers at your school. I have certainly seen "political appointments" even in lead teacher positions and can certainly see how that would affect teacher perceptions of them. I can also admit that I have struggled with the concern that I might have been a political appointment, a fear only allayed by the fact that there are very few teachers in my 5-year old school who had 3 years of experience at the time of appointment and I have a strong record of hard-work and leadership. I am also aware that the UFT is very much involved in the process of training and at the outset, selecting lead teachers through the UFT Teacher's Center. It's encouraging that there is some degree of oversight and cooperation by the Union in regards to what I think is an innovative attempt at making teachers leaders.

Still the lead teacher serves at the behest of the principal. It is still a one-year position with no guarantees which means, to some extent, we must try to stay in the good graces of the principal. However, good leadership is not and has not ever been about being a yes-person. Good leadership is often about diplomatically disagreeing with the principal and using every skill in your bag to change school policy to benefit student education and by extension of necessity, teacher satisfaction. Sometimes that means advocating for a teacher the principal is unhappy with and filling in the gaps the principal might have in their observational perceptions by sharing the good things a teacher is doing and the individual progress that teacher is making. Sometimes that is agreeing with a principal on areas of real need where a teacher needs to concentrate his/her efforts and work harder. It's a stressful job and balancing both UFT and Lead Teacher responsibilities is not the easiest thing in the world.

However, from my inside view, I think the program is extremely valuable. First, it validates your position as a leader, giving you some credibility as a person who can achieve success in a classroom and who has some ideas on improving student success. The credibility one has as a teacher who is dealing with the exact same issues or who has dealt with those issues is very valuable and means you can approach conversations in a way that administration can't. This is an important starting point in schools where teachers may teach in their own small bubbles and don't necessarily have a high degree of collaboration.

Secondly, it gives you the time to do it. Those three extra periods a day (one of them being your prep period) allow you the time to steadily observe and build a relationship that would be very difficult to do if you were holding down five classes a day. As mentioned in Barbara's post the extra responsibilities should come with some extra pay for the extra work. I've never worked harder as a teacher or learned more than during my time as a lead teacher. I don't come to the position thinking that "lead teacher" makes me the epitome of great teaching. I have learned so much from observing other teachers, from the professional development that comes along with being a lead teacher and I have taken many of those lessons back into my classroom to use, to test out and then to share with other teachers.

I can understand feelings of frustration with lead teaching programs but I feel that this program is valuable for making teacher leaders and needs more time before we decide it's useless.

Jason Wagner
New York City
11/25/07

Hello All,

My name is Shahzia Pirani-Mellstrom. I work at Brooklyn International high school. Anne and Jason have brought up very interesting points about being a teacher leader. I would like to address two of the points below:

1. Anne, you talked about organic leaders emerging from the work they do and not necessarily by an appointment they receive by their principals. As you mentioned, these teachers should be recognized not only by her principal, but also by her colleagues and
by her students. I think this is very important, but there needs to be a culture of informal recognition to acknowledge the work of these leaders. Something that I found incredibly useful was a once a week share out encouraged by our principal during our Friday
afternoon meetings. During this time, teachers would announce something that went well for themselves or other teachers on their teams. These two minute announcements created a culture of sharing successes and recognizing achievements. I think this type of school culture works well to foster organic leadership over competitive appointed leadership.

2. Jason, you make a very valid point when you say that it is important for a lead teacher to have extra periods in the day in order to build relationships with other teachers. I also think school day structure can provide these opportunities for teachers who may not be formally appointed as lead teachers.

At my school, the teachers and students are organized into teams. This means that we have Math, Science, Social Studies, English, and Art/Gym teachers on one team working with the same 80-90 students. As such, the team plans together, counsels students together and spends time in each others classes observing and discussing lessons and strategies. Our school day is structured so that we have the same lunch period and
two weekly team planning periods. This school day structure allows for us to have more than one leader on the team as we all fill different roles based on our strengths. I think if schools truly value professional growth, providing the space for us to work with one another is of paramount importance.

Shahzia Pirani-Mellstrom
New York City
11/25/07

Jason, I am glad you felt compelled to respond to my comment. I wanted to be a bit provocative, but not offensive, and if I crossed that line, I hope you understand that this was not my intent.

I agree with you whole heartedly that we need a system for rewarding teachers, like yourself, who have taken on more responsibility within our building. I am just not sure how to do it and keep that real (or organic) feel to the leadership. Perhaps I am being a bit idealistic too think that there is a way to capture and breed this kind of leadership. It may just be another role within a building.
 
I think about it like this. Martin Luther King, Jr. rose to authentic power because people listened to him. He had more power than many elected officials of his time. However, if he would have been hired by Lyndon Johnson as a civil rights coordinator or advisor, then he would have become accountable to him. I question whether he would have been able to lead the marches and freedom riders that eventually led to some of our most revered civil rights laws. Yes, he would have had other powers, but what would that do to his leadership?

It is more of a question of a broader theory of leadership, than a question specific to the lead teachers program. This idea of leadership is complicated, and I wanted to explore this idea of authentic leadership -v- appointed leadership. I don't know that these concepts are mutually exclusive, but I do believe that there is a lot of tension between the two of them. I find it interesting to explore this tension.

Anne Looser
New York City
11/26/07

I was thinking about this as well last weekend.  What is 'leadership' or what does it mean to be a leader.  It's hard to have a discussion without some consensus (which may be hard to come by I imagine) on the definition of leader and leadership. I actually googled the term “leadership.”  It seemed that many definitions on the web (not always the best place to find trustworthy info) revolved around the notion of the act of motivating of others and taking risks, which kind of gibes with my general notion of leadership.  I see it as the ability to motivate, not just manage, others to do their best in pursuit of a common community goal that involves risk that may either hinge on causing change or maintaining the status quo against change. 

I agree with Anne in that I sense effective leadership as an organic thing coming out of the natural dynamics of a community.  Some individuals tend to rise to positions of leadership by virtue of their ability to motivate and represent others in the community effectively. Sometimes appointed leaders may be these individuals, recognized by those in power, and promoted into 'official' or institutionalized positions.  Sometimes they are outside those institutionalized roles (much like Anne's example of MLK) and sometimes appointed leaders are not these natural organic leaders at all (and tend to be less successful as a result I think). 

I don't think anyone would suggest that the officially appointed teacher leaders are not effective leaders or 'real' leaders by strictly by virtue of being appointed. Conversely, officially being appointed a teacher leader does not necessarily a leader make. I would hope that those who made the teacher leader decisions actually looked for people like yourself, Jason, who are naturally inclined towards leadership roles to place in that position. I also hope that, like Anne suggested and others have commented, the teacher leadership program (or any of the 'leadership' programs in the city including the school coaches program and mentor programs) considers that not all teachers are created equal and some teacher leaders might in turn need good leaders/mentors themselves to improve their leadership skills and inspire them in their development as leaders (I believe that some part of leadership can be taught though some might be natural to individuals).

Finally, I just wanted to echo something that someone mentioned in an earlier post (and I'm sorry I don't remember who to credit). I honestly believe that true teacher leaders do need to be able to take a stand/risk on positions of principle, whether as advocates for teachers against administration policies or as thoughtful people standing behind rational administration policies against teacher resistance. I think that is a linchpin in gaining the trust of those being lead and the trust of those above in the hierarchy. And I think that's where a lot of official teacher leaders (and I'm thinking here of the coaches in my own school) fall somewhat flat. They tend not to be particularly transparent in their personal positions but are even less transparent in their public positions so teachers don't know what they are saying to administration, whether they're advocating for teacher positions (community positions or individual teacher positions) or talking smack behind teachers backs. They tend to be more visible (again in my school) when implementing administration policy rather than when advocating for teacher needs or interests (naturally the former is often more public and the latter more private). As a result, trust dissolves somewhat and they are then seen, ultimately, as an extension of administrative positions (often seen as arbitrary) rather than a somewhat objective, or at least rational, party to ongoing social/political negotiations.

PS: I agree with the notion that we are all leaders in our classrooms (within the definition of leadership I mentioned earlier—motivating the kids we teach, leading them throughout the year towards a common goal, inspiring them to take chances, etc.), but I don't think all teachers are leaders within the school community as has been stated in past posts.  Being an expert in some aspect of curriculum or pedagogy does not necessarily equal being a school wide leader.  Leadership is far more than expertise and sometimes far less.  It helps to have expertise since those you are leading can have more confidence in the positions you take, but a first year novice with motivational skills and an ability to capture a common voice and take a stand might be a far better leader than the person down the hall with 25 years of literacy experience.  In a nutshell, if we are all leaders, who are the followers?

Chris Peyser
New York City
11/26/07

Good evening!

It's not yet over. You have 24 hours left to post! Facilitating has been made easy because of all of you. Thank you much. Here is a second summary of postings from mid-November, which I believe encapsulates the major arguments raised in the first two weeks. Like all the past postings, they were excellent. There were two threads.

First, we are still hashing out the "all teachers are leaders" vs. "not everyone is trained or has the capacity to be a leader." It's a good question that will continue to be under much discussion I believe. Second, Barbara Condliffe brought into the national listserv
discussion NYC's recent initiative to ease the termination process of teachers. How does that speak to the issue of teacher leaders?

Here is a recap:

FIRST THREAD

Reema Marji feels that "everyone needs to empower themselves as a leader."

Kathleen O'Hagan wondered if perhaps what people are looking for from "teacher leaders" goes beyond teaching practices and goes into effecting fundamental changes in the school culture.

Jason Wagner is in favor of teacher leaders, responding to one of Anne Looser's posts by stating "I can understand feelings of frustration with lead teaching programs but I feel that this program is valuable for making teacher leaders and needs more time before we decide it's useless."

Anne Looser responded that it is the idea of leadership in general that she finds to be complicated. She wants to explore authentic leadership vs. appointed leadership, stating that there is a lot of tension between the two, which she wants to explore.

Barb Golub saw a larger issue rearing its ugly head: the role of competition in public education. She asked "How can we possibly begin to foster a school culture grounded in mutual respe