My Capstone, Terry F Erickson [classic novels .txt] 📗

learning. All of the studies, with one exception, found higher student achievement in schools that had implemented some type of leadership reforms: shared decision making (Jones, 1997; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994; Timperley, 2005), shared leadership (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, Wahlstrom, 2004; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Pounder, Ogawa, & Adams, 1995), collective involvement in staff development opportunities (Weathersby, 2000), professional learning communities (Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004), and teacher empowerment initiatives (Sweetland & Hoy, 2001). Ross, Hogaboam, & Gray (2004) found that high-efficacy teachers are able to motivate low-achieving students and pay greater attention to their needs. Mulford & Silins (2003) conclude that giving teachers more leadership opportunities increases their effectiveness and therefore increases student achievement. Leithwood, et al. (2004) were ecstatic in their findings of the relationship of leadership reforms and student learning: “It turns out that leadership not only matters; it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning” (p. 5). Even Miller (1995) qualified his discovery of little or no impact on student achievement by stating, “It may be premature, however, to expect changes in test scores at this relatively early stage in the course of this reform experiment” (p. 43).
Interestingly, all these reform programs also positively impacted teacher efficacy. Ross, et al. (2004) offered this definition of teacher efficacy: “Teacher efficacy is a teacher’s expectation that he or she will be able to bring about student learning. It is a set of self-efficacy beliefs that refer to the specific domain of the teacher’s professional behavior” (p. 164). Since the primary role of teachers is to teach, making them more effective at their job would obviously have a positive influence on student learning. Mertens & Yarger (1988) state, “Any plan to strengthen teaching as a profession should take the improvement of instruction and schools as its motivating force. Is there any other valid reason for the public’s caring whether or not teaching is strengthened as a profession? We think not” (p. 34). As stated in the above section, giving teachers leadership opportunities increases their self-efficacy and that has a profound effect on student learning. A Canadian study by Ross, et al. (2004) showed there was a reciprocal relationship between teacher ownership and collective teacher efficacy. Teachers with high self-efficacy have greater self-esteem, superior levels of planning and organization, a willingness to try new ideas, increased resilience in the face of setbacks, more enthusiasm and commitment for their job, less inclination to refer students to special education, and are more likely to stay in education (Ross, 1995; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Ross (1995) declared, “Having a greater role in school decision making is consistently correlated with teacher efficacy. Since increasing participation in school decision making influences teacher satisfaction, it is no surprise that teacher efficacy is higher in schools with satisfied teachers” (p. 247).


Chart 2

CAUSE AND EFFECTS OF TEACHER LEADERSHIP


CAUSE EFFECTS


Higher self-efficacy


Higher student
achievement


EVENT Greater job satisfaction


Improved professional
Educational Teachers practice
reform Involved in
movement school
initiatives leadership Conflicts with peers


Being unprepared for
challenges


Lack of autonomy


Lack of time


Can Anyone Be a Teacher Leader?
Andy Baumgartner, 2000 National Teacher of the Year, wrote about the beginning of his leadership experience.
In the summer of 1998, as I began to learn about my duties as the Georgia Teacher of the Year, I suddenly found myself thrust into a position of “teacher leader”. It was not a position for which I had applied or even asked; and I wasn’t even sure it was a position I wanted. For 22 years, I had been satisfied with representing my own views and opinions and had accepted the position of advocate for the 20-plus current students in my classroom, but nothing more.
Pellicer & Anderson (1995) wrote, “Instructional leadership is not just doing things, even important and worthwhile things, related to instruction” (p. 15). If we agree with Pellicer and Anderson, then who is a leader and how does he or she become one? Gardner (1990) asserts that a person isn’t necessarily a leader just because he or she happens to hold a position of leadership, power, or official authority. He states, “We have all encountered top persons who couldn’t lead a squad of seven-year-olds to the ice cream counter” (p. 4). What then makes a leader a “leader”? Is it true that leaders are made rather than born? In the literature I reviewed for this chapter, there were very diverse opinions. The authors’ viewpoints fell into one of four characterizations:
1. The school administration has the responsibility to develop and nurture leaders. The development of teacher leadership should begin at the recruiting and hiring phase. The school administration has the duty to search for candidates that have certain pre-leadership qualities. Administrators should hire teachers who are flexible, adaptable, open-minded, have a strong work ethic, are confident in themselves, and have good intuition (Gabriel, 2005; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001; Kilcher, 1992). Once such teachers are hired, administrators must nurture and train teachers to be leaders. Very few people come to teaching with the skills necessary to be natural leaders (Cowdery, 2004; Richardson, 2003).
2. Teachers are natural leaders.
Lambert (2003) argues that “all teachers have the right, capability and responsibility to be leaders” (p. 422). We often think that leaders must be forceful and decisive, like charismatic heroes and anti-heroes found in art and literature (Lambert, 2003; Sergiovanni, 1992). However, Lambert (2003) asserts that teachers can be formed into leaders by “conversations," “mentoring," “networking," and “integration." Conversations are those discussions that take place in structures such as “governance groups, teams, learning communities, action research, and study groups” (p. 426). Mentoring is a process of coaching and giving feedback between veteran and new teachers. Networking means being involved in national, state, and local professional organizations. Integration is important for new teachers to learn about the school culture and its mission.
Ogawa & Bossert (1995) assert that leadership does not come from individuals but from an “organizational quality." They state, “Leadership flows through the network of roles that comprise organizations. Leadership may be exerted by anyone in the organization” (p. 39). Anthony (1981) agrees when she writes, “In fact the beauty of shared leadership is that wherever, whenever, and whoever wants to give leadership can” (p. 487). These authors dismiss the notion that teachers teach and principals lead. Pellicer & Anderson (1995) state, “Teachers have always been leaders” (p. 5). Sugar and Warren (2003) make the case that the terms “teacher” and “leader” are synonymous, since teachers serve as models for student learning and have the responsibility of establishing the goals and objectives for their classrooms.
3. Teachers must possess certain skills to be leaders.
Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles (1988) found in a study of 17 teacher leaders, six essential skills to be effective: building trust and rapport, organizational diagnosis, dealing with process, using resources, managing the work, building skill and confidence in others (p. 353). Buckner & McDowell (2000) maintain that teacher leaders must have three sets of skills: group leadership, interpersonal, and problem-solving (p. 36). Johnson (2003) thought that teacher leaders were effective beyond their formal authority by being expert in their subject or area, having an attractive personality, holding key positions of power, and being highly visible to others.
4. The right environment must first be in place.
No matter what administrators do to attract highly skilled teachers and no matter what individuals do to become agents of change and no matter what skills or personal qualities individuals possess, if the atmosphere is not favorable for transformation, all will fail (Bishop, Tinley, Berman, 1997; Crowther, et al., 2002; Witcher, 2001).
Crowther, et al. (2002) identified four conditions that must be in place.
The first condition is public and professional acceptance of the existence of teacher leaders in the profession and in the schools. The second condition is active support of principals and system administrators. The third condition for nurturing teacher leadership is greater development of teachers’ roles in school reform and revitalization. The fourth condition for nurturing teacher leadership is the acknowledgement that teacher leadership produces positive school outcomes (p. 33-34).
While there doesn’t seem to be agreement in the literature about the need for certain qualifications to be a leader, I believe we could at least assume that a person who has the skills to be a teacher could become a leader given the proper motivation, nurturing, training, and experience.
What Are the Benefits and Costs of Being a Teacher Leader?
The literature I gathered identifies several benefits and costs facing teachers if they wish to hold leadership positions. The benefits include increased morale and job satisfaction (Jones, 1997; Lambert, 2003), improved professional practice (Lambert, 2003; Richardson, 2003; Stone, Horejs, Lamal, 1997; Walters & Guthro, 1992), and a higher sense of efficacy (Mertens & Yarger, 1988; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Ross, et al., 2004; Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004;). I addressed the correlation between teacher leadership initiatives and teacher efficacy in a previous section of this chapter.
Findings from Jones’ study show there is a positive correlation between teacher participation in decision-making and teacher morale. Similar results were found by Lambert (2003): “Teachers become fully alive when their schools and districts provide opportunities for skillful participation, inquiry, dialogue, and reflection” (p. 422). Through leadership opportunities, teachers become better in their practice by giving them a voice in decisions, learning about effective instructional methods, and better communication skills (Richardson, 2003; Stone, et al., 1997).

The costs of being a teacher leader include conflicts with peers (Barth, 2001; Duke 1980; Kilcher, 1992; Walters & Guthro, 1992; Weiss, 1992), being unprepared for the challenges (Bucci, 2000; Cherniss, 1997; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001), lack of autonomy (Kilcher, 1992; Odell, 1997), and the amount of time needed for leadership responsibilities (Barth, 2001; Bartlett, 2004; Duke 1980; Cherniss, 1997; Kilcher, 1992; Ovando1996).
Weiss (1992) found that there were often conflicts between leaders and non-leaders on a staff. Leaders thought that they did all the work while non-leaders thought leaders elite and aloof. Some teachers not in leadership positions felt it wasn’t their job to make decisions and thought, “there is a benefit in having a benevolent dictator” (p. 356). Bucci (2000) claims that teachers should be involved in decision-making but questions their preparedness for the task. He argues that teacher colleges do a very poor job of training teacher candidates to “understand attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills teachers need to function in schools utilizing shared decision-making” (p. 73). Two studies have found that lack of time is the number-one factor limiting teacher leadership in schools (Duke, et al., 1980, Ovando, 1996).
One would intuitively think that teachers would like to be more involved in decision making and not less involved if they wish to have more control over such things as curriculum, operations, and their work environment. Duke’s study was prompted by contrary conclusions in an earlier study by Crockenberg and Clark that found teachers were “apathetic or negative towards it” (p. 94). Duke’s study identified five potential costs and three potential benefits of leadership for teachers to identify through a survey. Duke (1980) found the highest cost for teachers was the increase in demand for their time spent on decision-making tasks or roles. The time necessary for other tasks was not decreased in relation to the