Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders: Contextualizing School Change
Jennifer I. Hathaway, Victoria J. Risko
Vanderbilt University
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association
Chicago, Illinois
April 10, 2007
Draft, Not to be reproduced or quoted without the written permission of the authors.
Research Perspectives and Theoretical Framework
York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) review of research indicates a lack of consensus about the
definition of teacher leadership and this lack of conceptual thinking has lead to wide variability
in implementation. While there are arguable benefits of reading specialists assuming a teacher
leader role (such as increased teacher participation, the distribution of expertise, and impact on
student achievement) and thus, the associated study of defining characteristics of effective
leaders, what is needed also is the careful study of personal and school institutional dynamics
that can influence its effectiveness. The purposes of the research we report in this paper are to (a)
identify roles and responsibilities assumed by reading specialists as literacy leaders in a
southwest urban school district; and (b) analyze the situatedness of these practices and the
multiple layers of contextual factors affording and/or limiting impact.
Expecting reading specialists to assume leadership for the professional development of
their teacher colleagues and ultimately for the literacy achievement of these teachers’ students is
intuitively promising but remains an untested proposition. School districts nationwide are placing
reading specialists in elementary and middle schools to provide professional development for
classroom teachers and boost students’ literacy achievement. This direction, often in response to
federal policy associated with NCLB legislation and Title I/Reading First mandates, lacks
evidentiary support. Multiple questions including those related to the role of teachers as teacher
leaders, expected impact on teacher and student learning, how teacher groups can achieve goals
that are set by groups external to the school community, and others are yet to be addressed in any
systematic way.
Currently, several groups of researchers (as reported in numerous 2005 and 2006
National Reading Conference sessions) are investigating what reading specialists do when they
assume leadership roles and how these roles are evaluated by others, but few are examining the
complicated personal, social, and authorial systems in place within schools that impact how and
why leadership may be enabled or constrained. Building new knowledge on teacher leadership
and school change requires, we believe, a careful study of the multiple layers of situated
practices embodied within school arrangements and expectations. We draw on activity theory
(Cole, 1996; Engestrom, 1999; Leont’ev, 1981) and distributed theory of leadership practice
(Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001, 2004) to help us represent the complexities associated
with assuming leadership. The processes of learning to be a leader and learning to learn with and
from teacher leaders occur across multiple activities, and each activity can be characterized by
distinct features such as goals and motives of participants, organization of the setting, and
teachers’ personal understandings and histories. Conflict of goals and expectations may
complicate the activity in one setting, while creative and shared problem solving may occur in
another. We are interested in capturing and describing how and why purposeful actions of
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
2
literacy teacher leaders are mediated by situational and dynamic factors (e.g., beliefs, curricular
and community directives, discourse of participants); our goal in this approach is to describe how
such activity is distributed across multiple events, interactions and expectations, often changing
“in action.”
Adopting new perspectives and understandings of teacher leadership requires us to
examine whether current (and we would argue) uni-dimensional views inhibit our understanding
of the robustness of factors impacting it. Theoretical models currently used to describe leadership
practices of reading specialists primarily portray leadership as consultative, collaborative, or
teaming efforts among teachers (Bean, 2001; Bean, Zigmond, Morewoood, Ankrum, & Helfrich,
2005; Fishbaugh, 1997; Walker, Scherry, & Gransbery, 2001). Each of these models privileges a
particular view of teacher leadership and its own power structure. For example, consultative
models promote inequitable power structures in which one teacher assumes an expert role and is
expected to dispense knowledge to others. Coaching models of collaboration argue for parity;
educators recognize complementary strengths and weaknesses in one another and alternate
between coaching and being coached. Teaming models are characterized by interactions in
which all participants have equal opportunities for contributing to problem solving and
instructional leadership.
We believe that models of leadership are more complicated than described by these three
models, and that the role of the reading specialists as teacher leader is ill-defined (e.g., how does
the reading specialist prepare teachers for coaching or teaming responsibilities; is there an
implicit expectation of a tiered model where the reading specialist is the leader of other teacher
leaders?). Some leadership implementations may include aspects of all three practices (i.e.,
consulting, coaching, teaming); conversely, there may be other power structures and embedded
supports and conflicts that are inadequately represented in such characterizations. Among the
many complicating factors associated with teacher leadership is the variety of ways that teachers
are cast as leaders.
Research Methodology and Data Sources
This study was conducted in six of seven elementary and middle schools of an urban
school district in the southwest United States. Pseudonyms are used throughout this work to
identify the school district, individual schools, and interviewees. The Jackson Heights district
serves a 60% minority population and was already involved in a six-year partnership with
researchers from our university designed to support mathematics teachers in the development of
their instructional practices and formulation of instructional decisions based on students’
reasoning (Cobb and McClain, 2001). During the final 2 years of this partnership, we were
invited by the district to serve as independent reviewers of its current use of literacy and math
teacher leaders. In this paper, we focus on the literacy teacher leaders of this district. We became
interested in the complex, multilayered discursive practices associated with literacy teacher
leadership as situated within specific school settings across this district leading to our research
questions:
1. What are the roles and responsibilities assumed by reading specialists as literacy
leaders in a southwest urban school district, and how are these practices evaluated by
the literacy teacher leaders themselves, their colleagues, and their administrators?
2. How does the situatedness of these practices and the multiple layers of contextual
factors afford and/or limit impact?
Multiple sources of data were collected from May 2005 through the 2005-2006 school
year that included surveys of classroom teachers (n=90, 107, 126; background details of the
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
3
participants are outlined in Table 1) and literacy teacher leaders (n=10) conducted over three
time periods, interviews of literacy teacher leaders and administrators and monthly interviews
with a purposive sample of 8 classroom teachers representing a variety of preexisting
orientations towards the concept of teacher leaders as well as to establish a balanced sample in
respect to years of teaching experience and teaching assignments (see Table 2), and activity logs
kept by literacy teacher leaders and the focus group of classroom teachers. The literacy teacher
leaders, principals, and classroom teachers participated in semi-structured interviews during
which they were asked to describe the roles of the literacy teacher leaders, responsibilities they
had assumed for professional development, and the nature of leaders and classroom teachers’
interactions. The interviews were audiotape and transcribed.
---Insert Table 1 Here-----Insert Table 2 Here--An initial survey was created by the research team in the spring of 2005 and completed
by teachers across the district in May 2005. The purpose of this survey was to discover teachers’
perceptions of the importance and diversity of the roles of mathematics and literacy teacher
leaders. Using the patterns of response that we derived from the data collected in this initial
survey, a revised follow-up survey was created by the research team in the summer of 2005. The
revised survey contained three closed items created by compiling the most commonly recurring
responses from the initial survey regarding the most and least important job priorities for literacy
teacher leaders and forms of beneficial support received. Seven Likert-type questions asking
teachers to rank from a low of 1 to a high of 5 the effectiveness of the teacher leaders and their
practices within their schools were retained and six more were added (indicating strong
agreement to strong disagreement) addressing teachers’ knowledge of the selection procedures
for, responsibilities of, and requirements for literacy teacher leaders as well as leaders’ overall
professionalism and influence on student growth. Finally, modified versions of this survey were
created both for the literacy teacher leaders in the district and for teachers new to the district.
Researchers visited each school and administered the revised surveys in August and December
2005.
For this paper, an analysis of the survey data and the interview data from classroom
teachers as well as literacy teacher leaders and school administrators are reported. The data were
analyzed using a constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and discourse analysis
techniques. Our process was iterative as we grouped and regrouped data to reveal, crossreference, and verify patterns and themes within and across our multiple data sets. Additionally,
cross-case analysis was used to identify trends across responses by groups of participants. We
triangulated interview and survey data to help us understand patterns across and within the six
sites. We documented multiple features of activities within and across the sites, and described the
conceptual and pedagogical tools appropriated by teachers, literacy teacher leaders, and school
administrators.
Results/Discussion
Our data analysis yielded specific information about the roles and responsibilities of the
literacy teacher leaders and provided several thematic clusters of activity that help us ground,
theoretically and conceptually, teacher leadership as a situated construct. Descriptions of the
layers of activity serve as a window into the complex, multilayered discursive practices
associated with teacher leadership as situated within specific school settings across this district,
thus illuminating the impact of the institutional setting on the ways teacher leadership is realized.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
4
We present our results in two parts. First, we discuss the variety of roles and
responsibilities assumed by the literacy teacher leaders and how these practices were evaluated
using survey data as our primary data source. This information was originally presented at the
2006 National Reading Conference (see Hathaway, Risko, McClain, & Tyler, 2006) but is
included in this paper to provide a context for the second part of our work reported here. Second,
we use a case analysis approach to more closely analyze the leadership practices of three of the
schools within the district and illustrate how the situatedness of these practices change across the
sites and either afford or limit impact
The Roles of Literacy Teacher Leaders
First, we analyzed the survey data to examine the roles and responsibilities assumed by
the literacy teacher leaders and how these practices were evaluated by their peers. Overall, the
construct of literacy teacher leaders was powerful for all participants. Teachers and leaders both
agreed that having a knowledgeable peer teacher as a support for classroom teaching was highly
desirable and held the potential to change instructional practices and student achievement. There
was uniform and positive support across participants and sites for this form of professional
development in the district. Classroom teachers described their literacy teacher leaders as
effective, knowledgeable, and approachable resources for supporting literacy teaching.
On the survey, teachers were asked to rate the overall effectiveness of their literacy
teacher leaders from 1 to 5 with 1 representing not effective and 5 denoting highly effective.
Across the data collected in August and December 55% of teachers ranked the effectiveness of
their teacher leaders as a 4 or 5. In addition to rating the effectiveness of literacy teacher leaders,
the teachers were asked to rate other characteristics such as leaders’ knowledge of literacy,
approachability, and usefulness as a resource for new ideas, innovations, and problem solving.
The average of the August and December ratings provided by the classroom teachers are
summarized in Table 3.
---Insert Table 3 Here--Positive perceptions of effectiveness were also found within the interview data. Six of the
eight classroom teachers we interviewed reported that contacts with their literacy teacher leaders
affected positively their own teaching (one teacher did not address this aspect of effectiveness).
For example, when asked if her contacts with her literacy teacher leaders had any influence on
her teaching, one teacher said, “Oh, I think so. They are making me a better teacher…they’re
making me think about what I’m doing, they’re making me focus on what I’m doing, and they’re
making me go deeper into my understandings of what I’m doing” (PL, personal communication,
September 12, 2005).
The literacy teacher leaders at five of the six schools also rated their own practices as
having a positive effect on teachers’ practice and were able to provide examples of observed
changes in teaching practices. Only one leader, at the seventh school, indicated that she felt she
was not effective in her role. This teacher was involved in a pilot program within the district in
which the role of the literacy teacher leader was shifted to that of a content specialist who had no
release time to work with teachers. Having been a literacy teacher leader in previous years with
release time, she was acutely aware of the limited nature of her contact with teachers and the
resulting impact on their practices.
Finally, there is some preliminary evidence provided by teacher self-reporting to suggest
that literacy teacher leaders’ work affected student learning in addition to teachers’ practices.
Further analysis of this finding will occur when the school district releases its students’
achievement data (for which permission has already been granted). However, self-report data
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
5
from the surveys and interviews indicated that teachers believed that the work of their teacher
leaders positively influenced students’ growth in literacy. On the survey, 43% of classroom
teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case. Within the interviews, six of the
seven classroom teachers who talked about the effect of their contact with their literacy teacher
leaders on their students’ learning posited that there was a positive effect. Several were able to
identify specific examples of improvements they had observed in their students’ that they
believed were directly related to their work with the literacy leaders. For example, one teacher
described evidence of student growth in their retelling abilities after working with her literacy
teacher leader to improve her teaching of this skill. Literacy teacher leaders in the Jackson
Heights district assumed multiple roles, including modeling and demonstrating lessons, coplanning, providing on-going professional development, observing teaching and providing
feedback, and administering and analyzing pupil assessments across sites; however how these
roles were actualized across schools was not the same. Instead roles were site-, function- and
person-specific (e.g., new teachers required more support) and rule-driven (according to
conceptual frames and principles appropriated by participants).
Though there was general agreement among teachers that literacy teacher leaders can be
valuable resources, we identified tensions associated with how support is allocated within
schools and how the leaders’ roles were prioritized. From the survey data, we know that teachers
felt that supporting new teachers should be the top job priority for the literacy leaders. From our
interviews, we noted that the literacy teacher leaders and administrators also identified this as a
top priority and overall, first year teachers seemed to feel sufficiently supported. However, due
to the large number of new teachers in some schools, more experienced teachers often found
themselves without adequate support. While experienced teachers recognized the importance of
supporting new teachers, they also expressed a desire for more personal in-class support from
teacher leaders contradicting what administrators told us when we initiated our study, that
veteran teachers were resistant to support from their peers. For example, one experienced teacher
noted in her interview that she knew she was “not high on the priority list for classroom visits”
(WB, personal communication, September12, 2005) because she was an experienced teacher. In
a subsequent interview when asked how she would change the roles of literacy teacher leaders
she added that she would extend their time or add more teacher leaders so that they could support
experienced teachers. She explained, “I certainly have areas still to grow and learn and would
love the opportunity to have someone in here on a consistent basis to help me do that. There’s
just not enough time in their schedule” (WB, personal communication, October 3, 2005).
The lack of sufficient time for sustained support for each teacher was a pervasive
constraint felt by all participants, a finding across all interviews. Seven of the eight classroom
teachers we interviewed indicated a desire for systematic, routine contact with their literacy
teacher leaders; only four were receiving this type of contact. Of those four, two were first year
teachers and one other only received this type of routine support for one quarter of the school
year. When asked to describe challenges they faced in their positions, all of the literacy teacher
leaders we interviewed named time as one such challenge. Likewise, in the survey data almost
one-third of classroom teachers indicated a desire for more time with the literacy teacher leaders
when asked to describe one change, if any, they would make regarding the teacher leader
position.
Beyond support for new teachers, across the August and December survey data, an
average of 63% of classroom teachers also indicated that they valued having the literacy teacher
leaders provide modeling and demonstrations of instruction; 37% valued support for effective
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
6
implementation of the curriculum; and 35% desired to have classroom observations followed by
feedback. While these forms of support were valued, they did not always appear to be the types
of support that teachers were receiving and finding beneficial. In those same surveys, only 34%
of teachers reported that modeling and demonstration of lessons was one of the most beneficial
forms of support they received; in fact, 20% noted that this was a type of support they would
have liked to receive but did not. Though supporting effective curriculum implementation was
ranked as the third most important job priority, only 20% of teachers indicated that this was one
of the most helpful forms of support they received an 11% did not receive this type of support
but desired it.
Overall, we found that use of literacy teacher leaders as a form of professional
development was valued and supported within the district. While there were frustrations
regarding time constraints and the prioritization of support for first-year teachers, the literacy
teacher leaders were seen as effective resources for supporting the change of instructional
practices and student learning by both classroom teachers and school administrators.
Case Analysis: A Distributed Perspective of Literacy Leadership Practices
Our second question focused on the situatedness of the literacy teacher leaders’ practices
and the multiple layers of contextual factors affording and/or limiting impact. To better examine
the complex leadership practices at play within the Jackson Heights district, we rely on the
distributed leadership framework. Spillane et al. (2004) argue that to truly understand the how
and why of leadership activity, one must investigate how the practice of leadership emerges from
the interaction of leaders, followers, and the situation in which they operate. This involves
identifying “the tasks, actors, actions, and interactions of school leadership as they unfold
together in the daily life of school” (Spillane et al., 2001, p. 23). In order to accomplish this, it is
necessary to examine not only leadership tasks and functions, but also how these tasks are
distributed among leaders and followers as well as the material and symbolic artifacts and tools
that are located within the situation.
Using Spillane et al.’s (2001, 2004) distributed leadership theory to frame our case
analysis, we examined the leadership practices found in multiple schools within the Jackson
Heights district. We chose to use a case analysis approach because throughout the district, the
position of literacy teacher leader was implemented differently in each school. For this work, we
build on data presented previously (Hathaway et al., 2006) as we provide a more specific
analysis of the distinct activity situations occurring across the Jackson Heights district associated
with professional development. We analyzed the actions (of teachers, administrators, and
leaders) across macro (school-level professional development) and micro (teacher conferences)
activities within each school and mapped linkages among factors affecting actions, and
ultimately, distribution of leadership. A comparison of mappings across schools provided a
clustering of features affecting leadership decisions and impact. These mappings were useful for
representing leadership in multiple configurations and to illustrate how common leadership goals
and tasks played out very differently across situated events and expectations.
We conducted in-depth examinations of the literacy leadership practices at three of the
schools in the district: Winstead Elementary, Douglas Elementary, and Central Middle School.
Each school serves a diverse population of students. While each school had multiple literacy
teacher leaders, the types and especially the intensity of support provided to teachers varied
greatly. The first school, Winstead Elementary, was selected as a case to illustrate multiple layers
of leadership displayed within the school; it provides a rich set of data for investigating the
distributed nature of literacy leadership. Winstead Elementary serves approximately 420 students
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
7
in grades PreK-4 and employs about 30 teachers. During the 2005-2006 school year there were
two literacy teacher leaders in place in the school. One leader spent half of her day in the role of
literacy teacher leader and the remainder teaching in a regular classroom. The other leader spent
one quarter of her day as a literacy leader, half as a math teacher leader, and the remainder of the
day serving gifted students in the school. There was still a vacant half-time position open for a
literacy teacher leader during our time in the district. Douglas Elementary houses approximately
730 PreK through third grade students and feeds into Central Middle school, which serves about
750 students in grades 4-8. There were around 45 teachers at Douglas and 50 at Central, about 18
of whom were responsible for literacy instruction. Each school had two literacy teacher leaders
during the 2005-2006 school year. At Douglas, each leader spent half of the day working in the
role of literacy teacher leader and the remainder of the day working with small groups of
students while at Central the leaders were responsible for instruction for two-thirds of the day
leaving only one-third of their time to devote to their role as literacy teacher leaders. Douglas
Elementary and Central Middle were purposefully selected as cases to provide contrasts to the
leadership practices in place at Winstead Elementary. From the survey data, we noted that
teachers at Winstead seemed to be polarized in their feelings about the support they received
from their teacher leaders; they either highly appreciated the support and found it useful or found
it to be ineffective. Survey results from the teachers at Douglas indicated a high level of support
and satisfaction with the professional development provided by the literacy teacher leaders
across the faculty while data from Central Middle provide a negative case.
A second reason for the selection of these cases was the diversity in the types and
intensity of support provided by literacy teacher leaders within each school. Across the district,
some professional development time was built into each school’s schedule. Students were
dismissed early one day each week in order to provide time either for district-wide or schoolwide professional development. Most often, teachers met by grade level during this time on their
own school campuses. The content focus of these sessions varied from school to school. Districtwide development sessions occurred less frequently and outside consultants were often brought
in to lead the sessions (for example, instruction in the use of newly adopted textbooks). At other
times, literacy and mathematics teacher leaders from across the district were expected to lead
these district-wide sessions.
To better contextualize the literacy leadership practices in each school, it is important to
understand the idiosyncratic nature of professional development at each school. Winstead
Elementary was unique in the amount of professional development it provided for its teachers.
During their weekly early release time, teachers typically met in larger groups (K-2, 3-4) and
teacher leaders led sessions focused either on literacy or on math. For example, at times the
literacy teacher leaders led sessions addressing the district’s writing instructional program while
at other times a book study was conducted. This time was also used for school-wide data analysis
with teachers and leaders working together to track student progress. Teachers had little input
into the content of these sessions.
In addition to these weekly early release sessions, Winstead teachers also met within the
regularly scheduled school day for additional professional development while their students
attended special area classes. The school operated on a six-day rotation, and within each rotation,
teachers met by grade level for professional development sessions in both literacy and math.
These sessions were again heavily guided by the teacher leaders. However, at times teachers
were able to influence the topics and duration of study.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
8
A third layer of professional development was also in place for teachers at Winstead as
the primary job of the literacy teacher leaders was to provide in-class support for teachers. The
amount of in-class support received was differentiated based on teachers’ experience and student
achievement data. Teachers in their first 2 to 3 years, as well as experienced teachers whose
student achievement data indicated a need, received in-class support across the entire school
year. This support consisted of weekly cycles of observation and feedback, though at the
beginning of the year, leaders often visited classrooms daily. Teachers and leaders worked
together to set goals for their interactions and traced the progress of those goals. The literacy
leaders also modeled and demonstrated new instructional practices for the teachers and as
necessary assisted with instructional planning. Other teachers within the school also received this
type of in-class support; but, rather than receiving weekly support for the entire year, they
worked with their literacy teacher leader for only one quarter of the year. More experienced
teachers also had greater freedom in the selection of goals addressed during their in-class
support.
A reliance on student data was a common trait across all of the professional development
activities at Winstead. All professional development sessions began with a collaborative analysis
of data to determine students’ instructional needs. Once those needs were determined, they
guided the setting of individual, grade level, and even school level objectives for professional
development with extensive documentation used to track teachers’ progress with these goals.
There were some similarities in the types of support provided by literacy teacher leaders
at Winstead Elementary and Douglas Elementary; however, the intensity of support for all
teachers was dramatically different. The weekly release time alternated between literacy and
math topics so all teachers received some type of professional development in literacy
approximately once every 2 weeks. Topics of study included, for example, work with the
district’s writing program, managing reading groups, and vocabulary instruction. The literacy
teacher leaders analyzed student data and used it as a starting point for discussion with teachers
regarding students’ needs. From there, with the guidance of the literacy teacher leaders the
groups set goals for this professional development time. The leaders were then responsible for
planning and implementing sessions designed to address those goals.
For many teachers at Douglas, these bi-weekly sessions were the only professional
development they receive from their literacy leaders. Only 22 of the 45 teachers received any
further substantial support from their leaders. While leaders may have been available to answer
questions on the fly, there was no scheduled contact with the remaining 23 teachers. Like
Winstead, in-class support consisted of modeling and demonstrating, observing and feedback, as
well as support with instructional planning, and was differentiated based on teacher experience
and need. Teachers in their first year either in the district or in the profession received the most
help from teacher leaders, especially during the beginning weeks of school. For example, during
the first 3 weeks of school, one of the literacy teacher leaders was in one new teacher’s
classroom on a daily basis modeling, observing, and helping her establish classroom literacy
routines. Typically, however, these teachers received support in the form of one classroom visit
and one feedback session during each six-day rotation. Also, teachers determined to be in need
of support by the principal and literacy leaders based on previous evaluations or student data
received this regular support, regardless of years of experience.
Additional forms of support were provided at Douglas for targeted teachers who were
beyond their first year of teaching. With some teachers, leaders provided in-class support (one
observation/modeling session and one feedback session) once every 2 weeks while a third group
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders
9
of teachers received no direct in-class support in the form of observations or modeling but did
have the opportunity to participate in brief dialogue sessions with their literacy leader. They met
for approximately 20 minutes every 2 weeks to address the teachers’ questions and concerns.
Teachers reported that this time was often compromised due to other activities that spilled over
onto their designated meeting times. While leaders indicated they would come in to observe and
provide feedback if directly asked to by the teachers, this was not part of these teachers’
regularly scheduled support. At times, teachers were asked to self-select the individual goals
addressed during their time with their literacy leaders, but leaders also acknowledged that they
were much more directive with less experienced teachers or teachers demonstrating greater
needs.
Finally, the professional development model in place at Central Middle differed from
those at Winstead and Douglas. The greatest difference was that unlike at the other schools, the
literacy teacher leaders were not responsible for the professional development provided during
the weekly release time. Instead, all teachers were asked to volunteer to take turns leading these
sessions. While the teacher leaders did facilitate the scheduling and organization of these
sessions, and at times led them in order to share information from the district, their main role was
to participate in them as learners. There was also greater choice in the topics studied. Teachers
met in content area groups rather than grade levels and at the beginning of the year completed a
survey indicating both their interests and areas of strength they were willing to share with the
group. Topics of greatest interest were placed on the schedule; these included using a new
reading inventory and learning more about emotional intelligence.
Like at Douglas, for many Central teachers this was the sum total of the professional
development they received from literacy leaders. Of the approximately 18 literacy teachers on
the campus, only nine received additional support from the teacher leaders. Once again, new
teachers or teachers new to literacy received top priority. Beyond those teachers, the
administrators and leaders determined others to support based on need. The type of support those
nine received depended on their assigned literacy leader. One leader supported four teachers,
maintaining similar weekly observation and feedback routines as those described at Winstead
and Douglas. However, since she herself was responsible for classes for two-thirds of the day,
she had less flexibility in her schedule leading to less frequent opportunities for observation. For
example, several of the teachers taught language arts at the same time she did, therefore, she was
only able to observe in those classrooms once every 2 weeks (the principal covered her classes to
allow her to do so). For one teacher, there was no time for observation at all. Regardless, she at
least meet with the four teachers she supported once each week to address their questions and
concerns.
Central’s second literacy teacher leader supported five teachers, but in a much less
scheduled way. At times she completed classroom observations, but they were more impromptu.
She did make a point to meet with the teachers she supported and helped with curricular
questions or provided resources, but again these meetings were more informal as she had no set
schedule for such contact. While she indicated a desire to be in these teachers’ classrooms on a
weekly basis, she admitted that she was not able to do so.
A final difference with the model in place at Central was the lack of reliance on student
data to drive professional development. While data were used in varying degrees at Winstead
and Douglas to guide teacher learning, professional development sessions at Central were guided
by teacher interest and choice and in the case of in-class support, information leaders gathered
from their observations.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 10
As we analyzed the case data, we used a distributed perspective framework to help us
trace leadership practices within and across the schools and we present these findings next. We
identified leadership functions and tasks as well as the distribution of these tasks across the
leaders (administrators and teacher leaders), followers (teachers), and the school contexts. In
examining the distribution of leadership across contexts, we specifically examined the artifacts
and tools found within each school and considered how they helped constitute the literacy
leadership practice.
Leadership functions and tasks. We begin our analysis of the literacy leadership practices
within the Jackson Heights district with an examination of the leadership tasks and functions and
how these were enacted in each of the chosen cases. Spillane et al. (2001) argue that leadership
tasks can be classified as macro functions and micro tasks. Macro functions involve large-scale
organizational tasks while micro tasks refer to the smaller tasks carried out on a routine basis as
part of satisfying the larger macro functions.
At Winstead Elementary, one macro function we were able to identify was supporting
teacher growth and development for all teachers within the school regardless of years of
experience. In order to be successful in this endeavor, micro tasks such as data analysis, creation
of the school’s schedule, classroom observations, leadership team meetings, and the
administering of staff surveys all had to be completed. While some of these tasks were more
managerial in nature and others focused on instruction, they all were necessary for supporting
teacher growth and development.
In order to enact these tasks, the leadership role was “stretched” across the principal and
literacy teacher leaders at the school allowing the leadership practices to be shared across these
leaders. Each leader brought different and complimentary knowledge and skills to these tasks.
The principal was aware of state standards for testing and able to assist in the analysis of student
data in relation to these standards as well as having the power to manipulate the daily schedule of
the school to allow for times during the school day for teachers to meet as a group for
professional development. The literacy leaders brought an in-depth knowledge of literacy
development and instruction as well as specialized training in coaching techniques with
classroom teachers. As part of their role as literacy leaders, they spent considerable time in all
classrooms and were able to share their knowledge of current instructional practices within the
school as well as progress they noted. The principal and literacy teacher leaders coordinated their
efforts to design and implement professional development programs aimed at helping teachers
revise their instructional practices based on the trends emerging from the sources of information
they each possessed. Spillane et al. (2004) note that from a distributive perspective, this type of
leadership practice is multiplicative “because the interactions among two or more leaders in
carrying out a particular task may amount to more than the sum of those leaders’ practice” (p.
16).
An important characteristic of leadership within this school was the interdependencies
among the tasks completed by the leaders. For example, with classroom observations, the teacher
leaders were routinely observing in classrooms and providing feedback for maintaining or
adjusting instruction while the principal visited classrooms less frequently and in the role of an
evaluator rather than a literacy leader. These leadership tasks were separate and distinct but
complimentary; the information that all leaders gleaned from these observations was combined
to inform decisions about future professional development to support teachers’ growth and
development.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 11
While a similar macro function was identifiable at Douglas Elementary, a difference in
faculty demographics shifted this function from teacher growth and development to teacher
proficiency. With fewer literacy teacher leaders and a greater number of new and inexperienced
teachers, the primary goal of the professional development provided by the literacy teacher
leaders was to support new teachers in becoming independent and successful within their own
classrooms. A secondary goal of supporting more experienced teachers did exist; however, as
previously noted, only 22 of the 45 teachers within the school received any type of individual
support, either in the form of in-class support or dialogue sessions, from literacy leaders. Once
teachers were seen as proficient, their level of supported dropped significantly (as in the case of
teachers receiving only 20 minutes of dialoguing once each 2 weeks) or was nonexistent (as in
the case of the remaining 23 teachers on staff). Micro tasks completed in support of this macro
function included data analysis, classroom observation, and meetings between the principal and
literacy teacher leaders. Within classrooms, Douglas’s literacy teacher leaders assisted teachers
in setting goals to address both student achievement and improving teachers’ instructional
practices as measured by the district’s evaluation rubric.
Although the leadership at Douglas Elementary did appear to be shared between the
principal and literacy teacher leaders, it did not demonstrate the multiplicative property that we
observed at Winstead Elementary. As noted above the leaders within the school did work
together to make decisions about which teachers to serve and often met to monitor the progress
of these teachers. However, in the day-to-day practices of the school, there appeared to be a
divide and conquer strategy in place. The principal relied on the literacy teacher leaders as the
literacy experts within the school and turned over the job of mentoring newer teachers and
teachers with demonstrated need to them. The literacy leaders in turn operated independently to
support their assigned teachers, only collaborating on decisions for school-wide professional
development sessions. Additionally, more of the data analysis tasks were completed by the
literacy leaders alone and reported back to the principal and teachers rather than being a
collaborative undertaking across the leaders and followers in the school. Thus, there was also
less interdependency among the micro tasks completed by the leaders as they worked toward the
goal of teacher proficiency.
During our time in the Jackson Heights District, we found Central Middle School to be a
school marching to the beat of a different drummer. Unlike Winstead and Douglas and their
macro functions focusing on some type of teacher development, the focus at Central was on
supporting student achievement through their school-wide test preparation program. So, while
the literacy teacher leaders were charged with supporting new teachers, much of their expertise
was being used to support the reorganization of this intervention program in order to ensure the
instruction within the program was uniform across grade levels and tightly aligned with the
district’s curriculum. They spent many hours redesigning, planning, and preparing materials for
this school-wide program. While the administration and teacher leaders did meet from time to
time to talk about specific content-related concerns, these conversations were rarely mentioned
in our interviews and seemed not to be the focus of their interactions. Each leader was still
providing some support for new teachers, but the type of support varied by leader. One leader
followed a very set schedule of weekly observations and feedback sessions while the other
provided support as needed (either through observations and feedback or dialogues), though not
necessarily on a weekly basis.
In examining the stretched nature of the leadership practices at Central, we noted that
while the leaders and administrators were working together to improve student achievement at
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 12
the school, this leadership did not necessarily extend into the realm of professional development.
Much more of the leadership efforts appeared to be addressing curricular issues supportive of
student performance on state-mandated tests. Also, the tasks of the administrators and literacy
teacher leaders were less interdependent as indicated by the lack of continuity in the types and
amounts of teacher support provided by the teacher leaders as each leader implemented their own
model of support.
To summarize across the cases, macro functions for each school were well defined and
both administrators and literacy teacher leaders were engaged in micro tasks supportive of their
larger goals. Winstead’s highly structured, intensive professional development model required a
collaborative effort not only from the leaders but from the teachers as well as they attempted to
establish a learning community focused on teachers’ personal development and ultimately
student learning. Across the district, Winstead provided the greatest level of support for
experienced teachers. Having tightly matched goals and a great deal of interdependent tasks
allowed the leadership to be effectively stretched across the leaders within the school.
At Douglas, the leadership practices in place did allow for the accomplishment of their
goal of teacher proficiency. However, because the principal and literacy leaders worked more
independently than interdependently, the leadership while shared, was not as highly stretched.
There was also less of an effort made to establish a collaborative learning community focused on
teachers’ personal development as teachers and leaders had fewer opportunities to interact.
Of the three schools examined, Central’s leadership practices seemed to be the least
stretched in regards to professional development with a seeming disconnect between the macro
function of supporting student achievement and the micro tasks associated with professional
development in place within the school. As the literacy teacher leaders focused more of their
attention on revamping the school’s intervention program, less time was left for working to
improve teachers’ instructional practices as a means of increasing student achievement.
Teachers, perhaps, noticed this disconnect as 6 of the 13 (46%) Central teachers responding to
the December survey either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that their literacy
teacher leaders had influenced their students’ growth in literacy as compared to 13% (3 of 29) of
Winstead’s responding teachers and 0% of the 23 responses at Douglas.
Distribution of leadership across followers. Next, it is important to consider how
leadership is distributed across the leaders and teachers within each case. While much of the
decision making regarding professional development within Winstead Elementary was directed
by the principal and literacy leaders, the teachers did play a marginal role in composing the
leadership practices of the school. For example, in our interviews with the literacy teacher
leaders at the school, we found that they planned and led professional development sessions
(both district provided early release sessions and grade level sessions within each six-day
rotation) based on needs arising from their data analysis. Although teachers at times also
participated in this data analysis and goal setting, the literacy leaders set the agendas and
therefore ultimately decided the direction for the sessions. During these sessions, teachers were
active participants as they shared accounts of their own teaching practice. In this way, the
leadership was stretched across the teachers as well, even within the confines of the professional
development implemented by the literacy leaders and principal. In addition, interviews with one
classroom teacher at the school revealed that teachers at times also influenced the agenda of the
grade level development sessions, such as when they requested to spend more time on a topic the
literacy leader felt had been completed. Teachers often were also able to choose their own areas
of interest and need to be addressed during their in-class support. Thus, as followers, the teachers
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 13
were influenced by the principal and literacy teacher leaders yet they also exerted their own
influence. Rather than a uni-dimensional flow of power and influence, there were at least
opportunities for a two-way directional flow, and at times, a multi-directional flow.
At Douglas Elementary, leadership was stretched across the teachers, though as at
Winstead, this stretching was only minimal. In the grade level professional development sessions
held bi-weekly on early release days, the literacy leaders were instrumental in guiding the
learning. The leaders began with an examination of assessment data to identify student needs and
then presented that data to teachers and facilitated group goal setting based on those needs. They
recognized the importance of teacher buy-in and as such worked to provide teachers with some
choice over the direction of the sessions; but ultimately the literacy leaders were responsible for
planning and implementing the professional development. Teachers again participated in the
sessions and shared examples of their own teaching just as the teachers at Winstead did. For
those teachers receiving any type of personal support, the amount of freedom they had to direct
their own learning was often based on their experience or prior performance. For newer teachers,
the literacy teacher leaders and principal held an expectation that their support would be more
directive based on observations or review of assessment data while more experienced teachers
receiving individual support had greater freedom to direct their own learning.
Central Middle positioned teachers as more integral parts of the school’s professional
development. During this school year, there was a shift away from a reliance on the teacher
leaders to provide professional development for the school. Instead, the teachers were
encouraged to volunteer to share their own expertise as they carried out professional
development sessions for each other. In this way, teachers at Central exerted a greater influence
in this arena than the other schools profiled. Additionally, the administrators at the school
routinely sat in on professional development sessions and stressed the importance of continuing
to expand their own knowledge base. While teacher leaders did facilitate the scheduling and
organization of the development sessions, and at times led them in order to share information
from the district, they too were positioned as learners within the school community.
In looking across the three cases, teacher agency emerged as an important element. The
leadership practices at both Winstead and Douglas provided only minimal space for teachers to
influence their own professional development. While principals and leaders and even teachers at
each school indicated that at times teachers were asked to voice their opinions, the literacy
leaders themselves (and at Winstead, also the principal) felt it was ultimately their responsibility
to guide teachers toward predetermined goals and activities. When teachers did exert their
agency, it was some times honored and timelines or topics were adjusted while other times it was
rejected as leaders pressed on with their own agendas. In contrast, the leadership practices at
Central Middle were much more highly stretched across the teachers within the school because
teachers were given a great deal of choice and responsibility over the implementation of
professional development. While this was a fairly new change for the school, the administrators
and literacy teacher leaders saw it as a great strength for the school as it allowed all teachers to
assume a leadership role if they chose to do so. One possible explanation for the difference in
teacher agency across the three schools may be found in the degree of reliance on student data to
drive professional development decisions. At Winstead and Douglas where great emphasis was
placed on selecting topics for increasing student learning that emerged from the data, teacher
agency was reduced.
Distribution of leadership across the situation. Finally, because the situation in which
literacy leadership practices occur is constitutive of the leadership practice, along with the
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 14
leaders and followers, we must investigate the degree to which this leadership is stretched across
multiple aspects of the situation including artifacts and tools located within it (Spillane et al.,
2004). As Spillane et al. (2001) note, leaders’ actions on their worlds are mediated by artifacts,
tools, and structures. For our purposes, we examined how the language, notational systems,
tools, and even the school building helped constitute the literacy leadership practices within
Winstead Elementary, Douglas Elementary, and Central Middle School. We also examine the
histories and expectations the actors bring with them into these situations.
In interviews with the principal and literacy teacher leaders at Winstead Elementary,
patterns of language emerged providing a window that revealed how the leadership practice was
stretched across the leaders, teachers, and school context. All of the leaders continuously referred
to the leadership team and its importance in determining the direction for the school and its
instructional growth. The leadership team, comprised of the principal, the literacy teacher
leaders, and the mathematics teacher leaders, met weekly. The leaders all seemed to agree that
they shared the leadership within the school with the principal even noting “to think a principal
can do it all by herself or himself is crazy…it takes a leadership team and shared leadership by
the really committed teachers on your campus to be able to do that” (IN, personal
communication, December 12, 2005). The literacy teacher leaders indicated they felt fortunate to
be at Winstead Elementary where there was a strong leadership team and recognized that this
might not be the case at every school in the district, and indeed, we believe this was not true of
all the schools in the Jackson Heights district based on our experiences there. The language
emerging from these interviews also supported the sense that teacher growth and development
was a priority and something to be valued. The principal referred to the program of teacher
development they had established at Winstead Elementary as a “commodity” (IN, personal
communication, December 12, 2005). The teacher leaders noted the importance of using the
professional development time wisely; it was a time for learning, not just sitting around and
talking. Indeed, the professional development efforts at the school were described as intensive, as
starting with the data, and goal-oriented. The language of the leaders also revealed that they
believed good instructional practices could be learned. The literacy teacher leaders argued that
the teachers’ knowledge had already developed and that they were moving beyond what to teach
into refining the how of teaching. The principal also noted that as she observed in teachers’
classrooms she could diagnose the instructional problems found there and then dispatch the
teacher leaders to go behind her and build teacher quality from her feedback.
At Winstead Elementary, multiple notational systems were developed in order to manage
the multiple forms of data that the leaders were tracking. Graphs and charts were used to
organize student data for the leaders, teachers, and even parents. Other notational systems were
used to follow teacher improvement. Teachers set goals for their own learning based on needs
they identified from their own analysis of their student performance data. These goals were then
documented as were the teachers’ implementation plans that included what they were learning
from the literacy teacher leaders through in-class support and professional development sessions.
Videotaping was also a notational system used in the school to support teacher growth and
development.
Tools were also very important mediators of the leadership practice at Winstead
Elementary. As mentioned above, the leaders valued data to support decision-making and were
continuously tracking the progress of the students and teachers. The graphs and charts they
created served as tools to help them with the identification of instructional needs within the
school and the resulting professional development to support those needs. Also, designed
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 15
artifacts such as meeting agendas and notes taken during professional development sessions
served as tools. For example, during the study, we sat in on a grade-level professional
development session. The meeting began with a review of the agenda created by the literacy
teacher leaders. This agenda was posted and followed during the meeting. The teachers, with
guidance from the literacy leader, used books from the school’s book room to create lesson plans
for their own reading groups in which they stressed the integration of strategies for word solving.
As the teachers shared their plans with each other, the literacy leader recorded the main points in
a word processed document that was projected onto a screen for all of the participants to see.
These agendas and notes, as well as the graphs, charts, and other forms of documentation the
literacy leaders used as tools were all compiled into large notebooks that served in part as records
of the leadership practice within the school.
Even the school building itself served to mediate the leadership practice within the
school. There was a room set aside for professional development in order to support teacher
growth and development. This room, which was unique to Winstead, contained a large table with
comfortable chairs where small groups of teachers met to work on strengthening their
instructional practices. The room was equipped with a projection system that allowed teachers to
view the contents of the literacy teacher leaders’ computers along with white boards to facilitate
sharing of information. Upon entering the room, there was a clear sense that this room was for
learning. The setting aside of a space just for teacher learning clearly denoted the importance the
leaders at Winstead Elementary placed on teacher growth and development. The language,
notational systems, tools, and even the building itself were used not only to improve the
efficiency of the leadership practice within the school but also to bring about change in the
school’s instructional practices.
In addition to these artifacts and tools, all actors (principal, literacy teacher leaders, and
classroom teachers) within the situation bring their own agency as well as histories and
expectations to the leadership practice. Thus, it is valuable to consider the histories of the literacy
teacher leaders. While the histories of the principal and classroom teachers would also shed light
on the impact these leave on instruction, we were not able to gather adequate data regarding
these histories to draw such conclusions. At Winstead Elementary, both of the literacy teacher
leaders were experienced teachers with 13 and 14 years of teaching experience and had served as
a teacher leader for multiple years (6 and 7). Both had been taught particular methods of teacher
coaching (i.e., Cognitive Coaching) and brought those skills and beliefs about teacher leadership
with them to their literacy leader role. For example, classroom observations, feedback sessions,
and continuous and ongoing professional development were aspects of the role of the teacher
leader position that they highly valued. The literacy leaders also had a history within this school
as being valued members of the leadership team. As such, they had expectations that their role
was to direct the feedback given to teachers and to guide the professional development within the
school. At times they positioned themselves as the experts from which the rest of the teachers
should learn, rather than as equals learning along with the other teachers in the school. In their
positions as literacy teacher leaders, their roles were different from the evaluative role of the
principal. Therefore, the support they offered was valuable for teachers.
At Douglas Elementary, fewer patterns of language emerged from conversations with the
principal and literacy teacher leaders. However, it was obvious that both the principal and leaders
valued teacher leaders as a form of professional development and saw them as indispensable
within the school, especially since they helped smooth the transitions during staff turnovers as
new teachers entered the school context. During their interviews, the principal subtly guided the
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 16
conversation to make sure certain points were made by reminding the teacher leaders of events,
restating the leaders’ responses, and at times, even finishing their sentences. While the leaders
and principal did work together as a team, a greater distinction in roles was apparent than at
Winstead where the leaders and principal considered themselves to be equals. A second pattern
emerged pointing to the belief that the role of the literacy teacher leaders was to increase
teachers’ proficiency in bringing about desired student outcomes. For example, the principal
noted that not all teachers were working on self-selected goals. At times, the teacher leaders were
expected to direct teacher learning to address needs identified either by the principal or teacher
leaders. In choosing who receives more time for support, one of the literacy teacher leaders
indicated “experience, who has more skills to be independent” (QL, personal communication,
October 4, 2005) is the deciding factor while the principal added “assessment tells us some
stories that the teachers themselves don’t always reflect on….I keep [the literacy teacher leader]
aware of those” (GU, personal communication, October 4, 2005) so that she can provide
guidance in the right correction. This language points to a belief that teacher development
requires learning many smaller skills which when brought together lead to proficiency. Thus,
teachers lacking these skills, while problematic, can be fixed with intervention.
Fewer notational systems and tools were in place at Douglas. While there was some
evidence that teacher leaders kept written documentation of their interactions with individual
teachers and completed data analysis, there was less of a school-wide emphasis on graphing and
charting these interactions in order to document the leadership practice within the school.
Instead, the district curriculum and evaluation rubric seemed to play a more important role in
guiding professional development. In the past, part of the job of the literacy teacher leaders was
to evaluate teachers using the district’s evaluation rubric. While this was no longer a role of the
teacher leader, their intimate knowledge of the rubric naturally led them to use it as a tool to
guide their interactions with teachers.
As at Winstead, the agency and histories of the actors at Douglas shaped the leadership
practices. Both literacy teacher leaders were trained by the district through The Learning
Network ® (www.rcowen.com/rcoprfdv.htm) which focuses on providing job-embedded
professional development and used those skills and beliefs about teacher leadership in their
literacy leader roles. They had many years of teaching experience and had served as teacher
leaders for 8 years. These leaders also valued classroom observations, feedback sessions, and
continuous and ongoing professional development. A difference at Douglas was that while the
literacy teacher leaders collaborated with the principal, there was less of an emphasis placed on
their role on the leadership team. Unlike the leaders at Winstead who seemed to have their
fingers in all of the pies, the leaders at Douglas were less interested in shaping the direction of
the entire school and instead were more focused on meeting the needs of the specific teachers
assigned to them. They did see their role as directive at times, but also saw a need for providing
greater agency for the teachers they served, especially experienced teachers. Rather than forcing
support on all teachers, they waited for more experienced teachers to come to them with
questions and requests for support (unless the teacher was considered problematic as evidenced
in evaluations and assessment data). These leaders spent half of their day working with small
groups of students at the school and were less likely to always position themselves as the experts
from which the rest of the teachers should learn.
Our conversations with administrators and teacher leaders at Central revealed some
enthusiasm about the current direction of the school with the principal describing the current
climate of the school as “absolutely astounding” and “amazing” (VB, personal communication,
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 17
November 8, 2005). They were pleased with their efforts to revamp the intervention program and
felt that turning over control of professional development to all teachers had created new energy
in the school and was, in the words of one literacy leader, “cutting edge” (UI, personal
communication, November 8, 2005). Time was again noted as a concern. These leaders only had
one-third release time each day and found it difficult to provide adequate individual support
while also maintaining their duties associated with the intervention program. In order to provide
time for the leaders to observe all of their assigned teachers, the administrators offered to cover
their classes, but this still only allowed for an observation once every 2 weeks.
The data indicated no school-wide notational systems supporting teacher learning in
place at Central. Thus, there was no way to map teacher change within the school. However, the
reorganization of the intervention program was associated with several notational systems; the
teacher leaders worked to revamp the school’s scope and sequence and better align curricular
materials across grade levels. As for tools in place to support teacher development, they varied
from leader to leader. One teacher was a meticulous record keeper and used a variety of forms to
capture observations and feedback sessions as well as teacher growth. The other leader at times
scripted observations or created her own notes; however, she had no systematic tools in place to
support her in her role as teacher leader.
As noted above, the agency and histories of the literacy teacher leaders at Central had a
great impact on the ways they brought their roles to life. Both were experienced teachers having
taught 23 and 19 years respectively. However, the first leader had been trained within the district
through the Learning Network ® to be a teacher leader and followed the protocol most familiar
across the district of highly scheduled observations and feedback sessions supported by multiple
written tools. The second leader, while experienced, was new to the district and school and had
no formal training as a literacy leader, though she had experience as both a high school
department head and assistant principal. Also unique to Central was the fact that the literacy
teacher leaders were not members of the school leadership team, which coupled with their
decreased responsibility for leading professional development sessions, allowed them to avoid
the automatic positioning as anything more than content experts for the school.
In summary, all of the schools seemed to have internally cohesive visions of teacher
development as noted in their discourse during our interviews. However, across schools, these
visions differed greatly and influenced the ways and extent to which the leadership practices
were stretched across the leaders, followers, and situations. The histories of the literacy teacher
leaders proved to be an important factor influencing the stretched nature of the leadership
practices. At Winstead, for example, where leaders saw themselves as equal with the principal,
there was much less stretching of leadership across the teachers (followers) than at Central where
the literacy leaders and even administrators positioned themselves as co-learners with the
teachers. Among the three schools, Winstead seemed to stretch their leadership practices most
effectively across the artifacts and tools in place within the school context. As a very data-driven
situation, the notational systems were invaluable for tracking both teacher progress and student
learning. The lack of common notational systems at Douglas and Central made it much more
difficult to track the effects of literacy teacher leaders’ interactions on teacher and student
growth.
The Role of Context in Affording and Limiting Literacy Leadership Practices
Using a distributed leadership framework to guide our investigation, we recognized the
need to examine multiple factors–the activities and histories of the leaders and followers, and the
activities that were situation specific–in order to understand the complex literacy leadership
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 18
practices in place within the Jackson Heights district. In the above case descriptions, we analyzed
the activities of the leaders and teachers (followers) and reported on their respective objectives
for leading and/or participation in the professional development activities, and the division of
labor among the leaders and teachers (Engestrom, 1999). Such an approach demonstrates that
leadership is not embodied in any of those elements alone; instead, it is the result of the
interactions among those elements. Thus, we worked to reveal and represent the interdependent
nature of the tasks carried out by principals, literacy teacher leaders, and classroom teachers as
well as the artifacts and tools used to mediate those tasks. In the analysis we learned that while
distributed leadership practices could be identified in each case, the actual forms the distributions
took were highly variable. We would naturally expect the stretched nature of leadership to shift
from task to task, but while there was interdependent stretching across the three elements, within
the schools we examined, in particular Winstead and Douglas, greater attention was placed on
the leaders and situation (e.g., tasks associated with high stakes testing and improving student
performance), leading to persistent distortions in the distribution of leadership.
---Insert Figure 1 Here--The distribution of leadership as we described provides affordances (i.e., specific data are
shared with teachers so that shared goal setting for professional development can occur at
Winstead, new teachers are directly supported with in classroom teaching demonstrations at
Douglas, and teachers have opportunities to lead professional development at Central Middle).
Limitations also correspond to such distributed leadership—while all teachers at the three
schools have equal opportunity for receiving professional development, factors such as time
allocation, a high volume of new teachers, and priorities (increasing student performance,
supporting new teachers before experienced teachers) greatly reduce the reality of such
opportunity. Therefore, teachers are not supported equally and teachers do not have agency to
direct (or even collaborate in the direction of) their own professional development.
Though the schools each had identifiable macro functions and micro tasks in place to
reach those goals, the leadership practices within each school were stretched across the leaders,
followers, and school contexts differently. While part of this variation may be due to the
differences associated with how the roles of teacher leaders were enacted, we identified several
other factors that possibly contributed to the differences we found across the three cases: the
experience level of the staff, the cohesiveness of the literacy leaders’ practices, and personality
traits attributed to particular literacy teacher leaders. We briefly examine these factors using
survey data from each school to support our conclusions.
First, we considered the experience level of the staff at each school. For example,
Winstead’s literacy teacher leaders served fewer teachers per leader and fewer new teachers
across the school. Across the August and December data, an average of 21 teachers responded to
the surveys. Of these, 26% had 1 to 4 years of experience, 5% had 5 to 8 years of experience,
27% had 9 to 15 years of experience, and 37% had greater than 15 years of experience
(percentages do not equal to 100 due to rounding and failure of some teachers to respond to the
question). This contrasts greatly with the experience of the responses given by an average of 25
teachers responding across the same time periods at Douglas. Fifty-two percent of teachers at
Douglas had only 1 to 4 years of experience while 20% had 5 to 8 years, 9% had 9 to 15 years,
and 9% had greater than 15 years of experience (see Table 4). The greater number of less
experienced teachers at Douglas may explain the difference in macro functions between
Winstead and Douglas. Though the leaders told us that they valued helping more seasoned
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 19
teachers continue to develop, they also told us that they were most immediately interested in
assisting their overwhelming number of newer teachers survive their induction periods.
---Insert Table 4 Here--We also speculate that the youth of the teachers at Douglas may have contributed to the
overall strong support of the literacy teacher leader position. At Douglas, 76% of responding
teachers (n=29) indicated on the December survey that their literacy teacher leader was an
effective resource and 90% felt their leaders were good resources for new ideas, innovations, and
solving problems. In our interviews with a second year teacher at Douglas, the teacher expressed
the desire for more direction from the literacy leader. The same was true of other less
experienced teachers we interviewed who indicated they valued the support provided by their
literacy leaders but yet did not always feel they were able to articulate their own needs. This is in
sharp contrast to the more experienced faculty at Winstead where on the December surveys
(n=23) only 52% indicated the leaders were either effective resources or good sources for new
ideas. Additionally, in our interviews with teachers at Winstead, there was some frustration with
the rigidity of the support that was offered at the school.
---Insert Table 5 Here--As for the cohesiveness of support provided by the literacy teacher leaders, Winstead
demonstrated the greatest cohesive system with all teachers receiving three different types of
professional development support, while Douglas and Central exhibited less cohesiveness. From
our perspective, the leadership practices also appeared to be more highly stretched across the
leaders, followers, and situation at Winstead Elementary, leading us to conclude that greater
consistency is desirable.
It is also necessary to consider teachers’ perceptions regarding the personalities of their
literacy teacher leaders. Much of a coaching relationship is built on trust, (York-Barr & Duke,
2004) so when that trust is not present the effectiveness of the support may decrease. We found
that from school to school, teachers seemed to have very different perceptions of their literacy
leaders. On the December survey, teachers were asked to rank their comfort level in approaching
their leader, their beliefs regarding how knowledgeable their literacy leaders were, and how
evaluated rather than supported they felt when their literacy leader visited their room. They
ranked these traits from 1 (low) to 5 (high). They were also asked to rank their level of
agreement regarding their belief that their literacy leaders respected their confidentiality. Results
by school are presented in Table 5. Overall, at Winstead 57% of teachers felt comfortable
approaching their leader and 52% found the leader to be knowledgeable while 44% felt very
evaluated during leaders’ visits and 30% did not believe their leader respected their
confidentiality. Teachers had a much more positive view of their literacy leaders at Douglas with
97% believing they were approachable, 93% believing leaders were knowledgeable, and only 3%
feeling evaluated by their leader. Additionally, only 3% felt the leaders broke their confidence.
Finally, at Central, the literacy leaders were viewed as approachable by 38% of teachers (n=13)
and knowledgeable by 31%. Teachers did feel more evaluated by their leaders during visits
(46%) and 31% felt their leaders did not maintain their confidentiality. We believe these traits
may be more person than role specific, though we were not able to tease out the nuances of the
interpersonal relationships between teachers and leaders. Regardless, we feel these relationships
contribute to the overall distribution of leadership practices within the schools.
Conclusion
Our analysis of both the survey data and cases led us to question the sufficiency of
existing professional development models for the framing of literacy leadership practices that are
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 20
robust and occurring within dynamic school contexts. As we examined the literacy leadership
practices within the Jackson Heights district through the theoretical lens of a distributed
perspective, we found that the current models used to describe these practices of literacy leaders
as primarily consultative, collaborative, or teaming efforts among teachers as described by Bean
(2001), Bean, Zigmond, Morewoood, Ankrum, and Helfrich (2005), Fishbaugh (1997), and
Walker, Scherry, and Gransbery (2001) were insufficient. The current uni-dimensional models,
which primarily address the tasks associated with the leadership role as well as the attributes of
successful leaders, cannot account for the complex leadership practices that we uncovered within
the district. We found leadership practices consisting of all three categories of collaboration
while at the same time discovering other power structures (e.g., principal as an evaluator,
importance of test scores) and embedded supports (e.g., opportunities for teacher group meetings
and shared learning provided by principal and rearranged schedule, school created culture
valuing professional development) and conflicts (e.g., varying needs of teachers, differential
histories of first year vs. more experienced teachers) which would be inadequately represented
by current models. If we only consider the leaders within these schools individually or if we fail
to examine the tools and artifacts found within the situation, we miss the interdependence found
in their joint endeavors and how these combined occurrences can affect changes. This
insufficiency of representation paves the way for our future research as we continue to work to
explore the personal and school institutional dynamics of literacy leadership and to propose a
more complex, situated model of professional development.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 21
References
Bean, R. M. (2001). Classroom teachers and reading specialists working together to improve
student achievement. In V. J. Risko, & K. Bromley (Eds.), Collaboration for diverse
learners: Viewpoints and practices (pp. 348-368). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Bean, R. M., Zigmond, N, Morewood, A., Ankrum, J., & Helfrich, S. (2005, December). The key
role of the literacy coach: Improving classroom instruction in Reading First schools in
Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Miami, FL.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1938). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fishbaugh, M. S. (1997). Models of collaboration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hathaway, J. I., Risko, V. J., McClain, K., & Tyler, L. (2006, December). Reconceptualizing
reading specialists as teacher leaders: A distributed perspective. Paper presented at the
meeting of the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, (30)3, 23-28.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, (36)1, 3-34.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, B. J., Scherry, R. J., & Gransbery, C. (2001). Collaboration in the schools: A theoretical
and practical view. In V. J. Risko, & K. Bromley (Eds.), Collaboration for diverse
learners: Viewpoints and practices (pp. 32-51). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 22
Table 1: Teaching Experience and assignments of the teacher survey participants
May 2005
Frequency
%
Teaching Experience
1-4 years
5-8 years
9-5 years
>15 years
no response
Grade Levels Taught
K-2
3-5
6-8
multiple grades
no response
Total
August 2005
Frequency
%
December 2005
Frequency
%
40
12
17
14
7
44%
13%
19%
16%
8%
40
14
22
24
7
37%
13%
21%
22%
7%
56
20
20
25
5
44%
16%
16%
20%
4%
38
30
13
6
3
90
42%
33%
14%
7%
3%
100%
55
33
8
10
1
107
51%
31%
7%
9%
1%
100%
62
43
11
9
1
126
49%
34%
9%
7%
1%
100%
Gender
Male
Female
Frequency
2
6
%
25.0%
75.0%
8
100%
Table 2: Teaching experience, assignments, and gender of the teacher focus group
Teaching
Experience
0 years
1-4 years
5-8 years
9-15 years
>15 years
Frequency
2
4
0
1
1
%
25.0%
50.0%
0.0%
12.5%
12.5%
Total
8
100%
Grade
Level
K-2
3-5
6-8
Frequency
2
3
3
%
25.0%
37.5%
37.5%
8
100%
Table 3: Classroom teachers’ ratings of effectiveness for literacy teacher leaders (LTLs)
Statement
The LTL in my school is an effective resource.
% Responding with
Ratings of 4 or 5
55.36%
The LTL is someone I can count on to answer my literacy-related questions.
61.80%
The LTL is a great resource for new ideas, innovations, and solving problems.
56.22%
I find the observations and dialogues with the LTL helpful.
38.20%
Meetings facilitated by the LTL are useful.
45.92%
The LTL’s classroom visits are supportive, not evaluative.
37.34%
I feel very comfortable approaching the LTL with issues related to literacy or the
curriculum.
I believe that the LTL in my school has influenced my students’ growth in literacy.
(rated as agree or strongly agree)
63.09%
42.90%
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 23
Table 4: Teaching experience of the teacher survey participants by case school
Teaching
Experience
1-4 Years
5-8 Years
9-15 Years
>15 Years
No Response
Totals*
Winstead Elementary
August
December
Average
2005
2005
(n=18)
(n=23)
#
%
#
%
%
4
22
7
30
26
1
6
1
4
5
5
28
6
26
27
7
39
8
35
37
1
6
1
4
5
18
101%
23
99%
100%
Douglas Elementary
August
December
Average
2005
2005
(n=20)
(n=29)
#
%
#
%
%
11
55
14
48
52
3
15
7
24
20
2
10
2
7
9
2
10
4
14
12
2
10
2
7
9
20
100%
29
100%
102%
Central Middle School
August
December
Average
2005
2005
(n=13)
(n=13)
#
%
#
%
%
3
23
6
46
35
5
38
2
15
27
2
15
2
15
15
3
23
2
15
19
0
0
1
8
4
13
99%
13
99%
100%
Note. Totals do not always add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 5: Classroom teachers’ December 2005 ratings of personal traits of literacy teacher leaders (LTLs) by
school
Statement
The LTL in my school is an effective resource.*
Winstead
Elementary
(n=29)
Douglas
Elementary
(n=23)
Central Middle
School
(n=13)
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
12
52%
22
76%
3
23%
52%
26
90%
4
31%
57%
28
97%
5
38%
52%
27
93%
4
31%
44%
1
3%
6
46%
30%
1
3%
4
31%
13%
0
0%
6
46%
The LTL is a great resource for new ideas, innovations,
12
and solving problems.*
I feel very comfortable approaching the LTL with
13
issues related to literacy or the curriculum.*
The LTL is someone I can count on to answer my
12
literacy-related questions.*
The LTL’s classroom visits are evaluative rather than
10
supportive*
I disagree or strongly disagree the LTL maintains a
professional stance & respects the confidentiality of
7
conversations & observations.
I disagree or strongly disagree that the LTL in my
3
school has influenced my students’ growth in literacy.
*percentages of ratings of 4 or 5 on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale
Reading Specialists as Professional Development Leaders 24
Figure 1:
Evenly Stretched Leadership Practices
(Adapted from Spillane et al., 2004)
Distorted Stretch of Leadership Practices Due to
Greater Reliance on Leaders and School Situation
as Found at Winstead Elementary and Douglas
Elementary