Teacher Leadership as a Strategy for Instructional ...cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr53.pdfTeacher Leadership as a Strategy for Instructional Improvement: The Case of the Merck

TTTTTeaceaceaceaceacher Leaderher Leaderher Leaderher Leaderher Leadership as a Sship as a Sship as a Sship as a Sship as a Strattrattrattrattrategyegyegyegyegyfffffor Instructional Impror Instructional Impror Instructional Impror Instructional Impror Instructional Improoooovvvvvementementementementement:::::The Case of the MerThe Case of the MerThe Case of the MerThe Case of the MerThe Case of the Merccccck Institutk Institutk Institutk Institutk Instituteeeee

fffffor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Educationor Science Education

Kate Riordan

CPRE Research Report SeriesRR-053

March 2003

Consortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Graduate School of Education

© Copyright 2003 by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Teacher Leadership as a Strategy for Instructional Improvement: The Case of the Merck Institute for Science Education

i

ContContContContContentsentsentsentsents

List of FiguresList of FiguresList of FiguresList of FiguresList of Figures

Figure 1. Composition of Instructional Teams for Science Workshops, 1996-2001 ........... 15Figure 2. Percentage of PTW Participants Who Found Selected Aspects of their Instruc-

tional Team’s Delivery Very Effective or Extremely Effective ....................................... 16

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. iBiography...................................................................................................................................... iiiAbout MISE .................................................................................................................................. iiiCPRE’s Evaluation of MISE ....................................................................................................... iiiOrdering Information ................................................................................................................. iiiAcknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... ivGlossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................ ivIntroduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

MISE’s Vision of Science Teaching ...................................................................................... 1MISE’s Theory of Action ....................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Framework: Instructional and Distributed Leadership .................................... 2Distributed Leadership as a Reform Strategy .................................................................... 5

The Development of Teacher Leaders in the Schools ............................................................. 5The Development of Human, Social, and Cultural Capital ............................................. 7The Impact of the Leader Teachers in their Schools ......................................................... 8Principal Support for Leader Teachers ............................................................................... 9The Impact of the LTI: Mixed Results ............................................................................... 10

Expanding Professional Development Opportunities .......................................................... 13The Impact of PTW Participation on Classroom Practice .............................................. 14Building Teacher Leadership through the Use of Instructional Teams ....................... 14

The Quality of the Instructional Teams ...................................................................... 15Instructional Team Members as Leaders in Schools ....................................................... 17

Involving Principals in Instructional Leadership .................................................................. 17The Role of Principals and Distributed Leadership........................................................ 18Principals’ Support for the Partnership ............................................................................ 19

Changes in the District Leadership Culture ........................................................................... 20Summary of Major Findings ..................................................................................................... 21Lessons Learned About Instructional Leadership ................................................................. 23

Overall Summary ................................................................................................................. 25References .................................................................................................................................... 27


ii


iii

BiographBiographBiographBiographBiographyyyyy

Kate Riordan is a Research Specialist with the Consortium for Policy Research inEducation (CPRE) at the University of Pennsylvania. She joined CPRE in 2001 aftercompleting her doctoral degree in educational policy studies at Pennsylvania StateUniversity. Her master’s degree in Human Development and Family Studies is alsofrom Pennsylvania State University. She is involved in two evaluation studies at CPRE— the evaluations of the Merck Institute for Science Education, and the America’sChoice school design. Her research interests include school reform and other influenceson children’s school readiness and achievement throughout school.

AAAAAbout MISEbout MISEbout MISEbout MISEbout MISE

In 1993, Merck & Co., Inc. began an endeavor to make a significant and visiblecommitment to improving science education by creating the Merck Institute for ScienceEducation (MISE) and supported the new venture with a 10-year, $20-million financialcommitment. From its inception, MISE had two goals: to raise the interest, participation,and performance of public school students in science, and to demonstrate to otherbusinesses that direct, focused involvement would hasten the improvement of scienceteaching and learning in the public schools. MISE initiated its work by forming partner-ships with four public school districts — Linden, Rahway, and Readington Township inNew Jersey, and North Penn in Pennsylvania —where Merck had major facilities. Tolearn more about MISE, visit www.mise.org.

CPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s EvCPRE’s Evaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISEaluation of MISE

CPRE, based at the University of Pennsylvania, was contracted by MISE in 1993 todocument the implementation of the initiative and assess its impact on districts, schools,classrooms, and students. Throughout the evaluation, CPRE conducted interviews withteachers, instructional leaders, and district personnel; surveyed teachers; developed casestudies of schools; and examined student achievement data in order to provide feedbackon the progress of the MISE Partnership.

OrOrOrOrOrdering Infdering Infdering Infdering Infdering Informationormationormationormationormation

Copies of this report are available for $5.00 each. Prices include book-rate postageand handling. Make checks payable to Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.Sorry, we cannot accept returns, credit card orders, or purchase orders. Sales tax is notapplicable. To obtain copies, write:

CPRE PublicationsGraduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania3440 Market Street, Suite 560Philadelphia, PA 19104-3325

Quantity discounts are available. For more information, please call (215) 573-0700.


iv

AAAAAcknocknocknocknocknowledgementswledgementswledgementswledgementswledgements

I want to thank a number of people who helped me at various stages in the develop-ment of this report. Tom Corcoran provided invaluable assistance from the beginning tothe end of the report. I am also indebted to Deanna Burney, Gail Danckert, Robb Sewell,and Siobhan McVay for their insights and feedback, and to Christine Gazzara and KellyStanton for their thorough review of the report.

I also wish to thank the many teachers, principals, and district staff members withinthe four Partnership school districts of Linden, Rahway, and Readington Township inNew Jersey and North Penn in Pennsylvania. The time that they gave and the informa-tion they provided through interviews and surveys are greatly appreciated and valued.

GlossarGlossarGlossarGlossarGlossary of Ty of Ty of Ty of Ty of Termsermsermsermserms

Merck Institute for Science Education (MISE) Partnership — Created in 1993 by Merck& Co., Inc., MISE began a 10-year commitment to the goal of raising student interest,participation, and performance in science. MISE formed partnerships with schooldistricts in Linden, Rahway, and Readington Township in New Jersey, and North Pennin Pennsylvania.

Guided Inquiry/Inquiry-based Instruction — A method of instruction that parallels thescientific method. Teachers inspire students to become interested in the subject matterand form their own questions and hypotheses about certain ideas. Teachers provideresources or facts that will help students further investigate their questions. Teachers actas guides while students form and investigate questions.

Leader Teacher Institute (LTI) — Launched in 1995 to provide intensive professionaldevelopment to a select group of teachers from each partner school over a three-yearperiod. These teachers would then become the Leader Teachers within their schools.

Leader Teacher — Selected teachers who attended LTIs and worked with new teachersby orienting them to the new module-based science curriculum and provided instruc-tional guidance and support.

Peer Teacher Workshops (PTWs) — Launched by MISE in 1996, PTWs provided profes-sional development opportunities open to all K-8 teachers in an effort to engage moreteachers in science reform. PTWs were open for voluntary enrollment and each was ledby a team consisting of a combination of Leader Teachers, content specialists, instruc-tional specialists, and classroom teachers.

Instructional Teams — Teams consisting of those who led the LTIs or PTWs. MISE heldworkshops for the instructional teams so they could plan their sessions, gather materi-als, and learn strategies for teaching adult learners. Instructional teams included MISEstaff, outside experts, Leader Teachers, and other district staff members.

Principals’ Institutes — MISE offers Principals’ Institutes to make sure that principalsare remaining informed about, and support, inquiry-based instruction and other aspectsof the reform process.


1

IntrIntrIntrIntrIntroductionoductionoductionoductionoduction

Since 1993, the Merck Institute forScience Education (MISE) has beenworking with four school districts —Linden, Rahway, and Readington Town-ship in New Jersey and North Penn inPennsylvania — to improve teaching andlearning in science. MISE has taken asystemic approach to its work with thesefour district partners. Guided by a visionof high-quality science instruction inwhich guided inquiry is an integral andregular part of the classroom experienceof all students, MISE and the four dis-tricts formed a unified Partnership thatdeveloped a strong professional develop-ment strategy to support teachers’ use ofinquiry in science. The strategy includesthe development of professional culturesin schools and districts that will supportthe desired changes in practice. One ofthe major strategies has been to developteacher leaders in the schools who werewilling, and able, to serve as championsof the instructional reforms and providesupport to other teachers who are imple-menting them. In this report, we describeMISE’s approach to the development ofteacher leadership and examine theeffects that this strategy has had on itspartner districts and schools.

MISE’s Vision of ScienceMISE’s Vision of ScienceMISE’s Vision of ScienceMISE’s Vision of ScienceMISE’s Vision of ScienceTTTTTeachingeachingeachingeachingeaching

Advocates of inquiry-centered teach-ing argue that science teaching andlearning should parallel the methodsscientists use to understand the naturalworld. Student investigations of naturalphenomena lie at the heart of this ap-proach, and the purpose of these investi-gations is to develop the skills central toscientific inquiry. The key assumption ofMISE is that engaging students in sciencewill develop greater interest in, anddeeper understanding of, science than ispossible through conventional instruc-tional approaches.

This view of high-quality scienceeducation holds that the most importantinstructional experiences are investiga-tions that challenge students to observe,question, hypothesize, test, and defendtheir ideas about science and the worldaround them. To teach in this manner,teachers must have a firm grasp of thesubject matter so they can encouragestudents to both ask critical questions andseek meaningful answers. Teachers areexpected to create active classroomenvironments that encourage inquiry andsupport students as they test hypotheses.

MISE’s TheorMISE’s TheorMISE’s TheorMISE’s TheorMISE’s Theory of Ay of Ay of Ay of Ay of Actionctionctionctionction

MISE staff recognized from the begin-ning that inquiry-centered instructionwould require considerable knowledge ofscience and sophisticated pedagogicalskill to guide and manage classrooms;they also recognized that many publicschool teachers currently do not possesssuch knowledge or skill. To achieve theirgoal, MISE staff developed a systemicstrategy that placed professional develop-ment at the heart of the work. Stated inbroad terms, their strategy consisted ofthe following components:

• Developing a new leadership team ineach district that included principalsand teachers who shared a commit-ment to improving science teaching;

• Developing a shared vision of re-formed practice grounded in inquiryand consistent with state and nationalstandards;

• Supporting the efforts of districtteams to make the improvement ofscience teaching a priority, and toengage in serious planning to addressit;

• Helping districts to develop newcurriculum frameworks for scienceand to adopt new instructional mate-rials compatible with inquiry-cen-tered instruction;


2

• Helping districts align other policiesand procedures (assessment, teacherevaluation, materials management,and most importantly professionaldevelopment) with the new frame-works;

• Developing district capacity to planand deliver professional developmentand support implementation of thenew curriculum;

• Developing professional cultures inthe districts and schools that wouldpromote continuous improvement ofscience teaching and development ofteacher expertise; and

• Promoting supportive state policies.

A critical part of this strategy has beenthe development of teacher leaders in theschools as well as others in the centraloffices who understood inquiry-centeredinstruction and could help others imple-ment it. In particular, MISE has focusedon teacher leaders, recognizing that theirexpertise would provide the districts withthe capacity for improvement, and thattheir roles in the schools and in thecentral offices would be critical to sus-taining the work, grounding it in therealities of practice, and legitimating it forother teachers.

In this report, we examine MISE’seffectiveness in developing instructionalleadership in science in its partner dis-tricts and address the following ques-tions:

1. What strategies has MISE employedto develop teacher leadership inscience? How have these strategieschanged over time?

2. How effective have these strategiesbeen in creating new roles and in-creased influence for teachers? Howhave teachers’ roles changed? Whatobstacles or problems have beenencountered?

3. To what degree have the strategiesbeen successful in developing profes-sional learning communities inscience in which individuals withcontent expertise are enabled asleaders?

4. What role have principals played inthis effort?

5. To what degree has MISE succeededin changing the leadership culture inthe central offices of the districts?

6. How effective have these strategiesbeen in altering district capacity tosustain the work and taking it toscale?

7. What can we learn from MISE’sexperience about the conditionsunder which distributed leadershiptakes hold and flourishes?

To answer these questions, we exam-ine data from three sources: eight evalua-tive reports by the Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education (CPRE) on thework of MISE; a qualitative database thatincludes interviews with principals,Leader Teachers, and science supervisorsconducted over the past nine years; andquantitative data from principal andteacher surveys collected between 1996-2001. These data sources all contribute tothe story of MISE’s efforts to establishdistributed leadership in the 34 partnerschools.

TheoreTheoreTheoreTheoreTheoretical Ftical Ftical Ftical Ftical Framerameramerameramewwwwwororororork:k:k:k:k:Instructional andInstructional andInstructional andInstructional andInstructional andDistributDistributDistributDistributDistributed Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadershipshipshipshipship

The implementation of instructionalreforms requires leadership and supportin the schools. Most of the researchliterature assumes that this leadershipmust come from school principals. Instudy after study, researchers examiningthe factors affecting the implementation


3

of reforms have taken this position(Elmore, 2000; Newmann, 1996; Spillane,Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Theresearch literature suggests that princi-pals provide their staffs with vision andfocus, creating coherence within theirschools. They support the efforts ofteachers to improve their practice, build-ing strong professional communities thatfocus on results and promote collabora-tion. They provide assistance to teacherswho need it. They carefully allocateresources, including time, to support theinstructional priorities of their schools.They buffer their staff from countlessdistractions. In sum, principals play acritical role in improving instruction.

Elmore (2000) argues that manyschool leaders are not adequately pre-pared to carry out the tasks of improvinginstruction. Classroom instruction can beimproved, he contends, only if schoolleadership is substantially redefined andchanged. The early organization of publicschools was characterized by centralizedlocal bureaucracies, governance byelected boards, teachers who were iso-lated from one another, and a primarilymale supervisory body who handledadministrative, rather than pedagogical,concerns and development. In manyways, these elements have remained inplace for over a century.

Elmore (2000) discusses two implica-tions of this organizational legacy. Thefirst implication is weak professionaldevelopment due to the perception thatteaching requires no specific expertise,but depends on the traits of the indi-vidual teacher. In short, teaching isviewed as a craft, not as a profession. Thesecond implication is the disconnectbetween classroom practice and schooladministration. The technical or peda-gogical core is the responsibility of indi-vidual teachers, rather than the organiza-tion in which practice takes place. Schooladministrators are responsible for themanagement of the process surroundinginstruction, but play a limited role in

instruction. Administrators traditionallyhave taken charge of finances and man-agement, and teachers traditionally havebeen given responsibility for instruction.School administrators are expected tomaintain public confidence that opera-tions will be smooth and effective, buttraditionally have not taken responsibilityfor quality of instruction.

Traditional models of school leader-ship are based on this dichotomy —teachers are in charge of the instructionand technical core of the classroom andprincipals act as managers, image keep-ers, and buffers from the public. Princi-pals often are overburdened by theirmanagerial roles and are not able to focuson building instructional capacity, model-ing, and student achievement, even ifthey desire to. Studies have shown thatschool leaders, especially within low-performing schools, are typically ineffec-tive in providing support and mentoringto improve instruction, and providingdirection and resources for teacher learn-ing and professional development withinand outside of school. In other words, theone role that is frequently not attended tois the instructional leader. This patterncontinues despite much research, datingback to the 1970s, which identifies theimportance of this role (Stricherz, 2001).

The realization that improving in-struction requires shifts in the behavior ofschool leaders has spurred new theoriesof school leadership and attempts atrestructuring school organization. Con-temporary conceptions of school leader-ship have moved away from the notion ofa single leader in a traditionally hierarchi-cal school organization to the morecomplex idea of distributed leadershipshared by multiple individuals at differ-ent levels of the organization (Spillane,1999). The model of distributed leader-ship “challenges the conventional roles ofpolicy and administrative leaders inbuffering [that] practice from outsideinterference. It posits instead a model inwhich instructional practice is a collective


4

good — a common concern for the wholeinstitution — as well as a private andindividual concern” (Elmore, 2000, p. 24).It is this theory of distributed leadershipthat underlies the strategies of MISE.

The theory of distributed leadershipassumes that leadership is practiced bothformally and informally in schools in avariety of ways and by a host of individu-als at different levels, and portrays howleadership functions are actually carriedout in schools focused on the improve-ment of teaching and learning. A distrib-uted leadership model requires principalsto be more involved in instruction andteachers to be more involved as leaders.Distributing leadership within the schoolempowers both teachers and administra-tors to be part of “a major change in form,nature, and function of some phenom-enon” in the school (Bennis & Nanus,1985 as cited in Spillane, Halverson, &Diamond, 2001).

In order for a distributed form ofleadership to develop, a stronger relation-ship must be formed between leadershipand instruction. This is a transformationalview of leadership (Spillane, Halverson,& Diamond, 2001) — that a leader has theability to manage resources, empowerothers, and transform instructionalpractice. Under these conditions, teachersand principals become reciprocal leadersengaged collectively in leadership(Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001).This is especially important in sciencebecause few principals have deep back-grounds in the subject.

Spillane, Hallett, and Diamond (2000)discuss the ways in which instructionalleadership roles are defined and allo-cated. These roles are determined by therecognition of, and emphasis on, variousforms of capital — human, social, cul-tural, and economic — possessed byindividuals in the school. Leadershipbased on human capital is rooted in

valued knowledge, background, skills,and expertise. Leadership gained throughsocial capital is based on valued networksand trusting relationships. Culturalcapital refers to knowledge, beliefs, andbehaviors that are valued by the organi-zation, and suggests cultural competence.Economic capital, such as funding forteachers to attend or lead professionaldevelopment workshops and provision ofmaterials, also contributes to leadershipdevelopment. Principals usually possessthe most capital as they control valuedmaterial resources and possess broadknowledge. Both teachers and principalsmay possess these types of capital, butinterestingly, Spillane, Hallett, and Dia-mond (2000) found that teachers moreoften viewed colleagues as sources ofsocial and human capital and were morelikely to view principals as leaders interms of cultural and economic capital.Once it is recognized that the variousforms of capital are distributed, it is easyto see how leadership can be strength-ened by relying on multiple sources ofcapital, rather than only on the principal.In fact, this is what happens in the mostsuccessful schools.

Distributed leadership rests on thisnotion that various forms of capital areimportant and provide a basis for leader-ship. It offers a more complex view of therelationship between leadership andinstruction. In this perspective, instruc-tional improvement is dependent on boththe leadership of principals and teachers.This view of leadership seems consistentwith the approach that MISE has taken todevelop teacher leadership. Therefore, wewill use this framework to examineMISE’s work and to gain insight into howthe practice of leadership in the partnerschools changed over time. In theory, thisdistributed leadership model is appeal-ing, and the MISE experience allows us toexamine whether it is possible to inten-tionally create it to support changes inpractice in one area of curriculum.


5

DistributDistributDistributDistributDistributed Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadership as aship as aship as aship as aship as aRRRRRefefefefeform Stratorm Stratorm Stratorm Stratorm Strategyegyegyegyegy

From the beginning of their workwith the four districts, MISE staff recog-nized that expertise in science and theteaching of science were needed to designand implement the policies, programs,and procedures required to support theimprovement of science teaching. Theyalso recognized that few central officeadministrators and school administratorspossessed this expertise. Therefore, fromthe beginning of the Partnership, MISEstaff felt that accomplished teachers whodid possess the requisite expertise had tobe part of the planning and developmentprocess in the districts. Thus, from itsinception, MISE’s strategy incorporatedthe idea of distributed leadership.

Therefore, MISE’s reform strategychallenged the traditional school organi-zation by preparing teachers to assumeinstructional leadership roles in theirschools and by pushing the idea ofdistributed leadership in the partnerschools and districts. To assess how wellthis strategy worked and answer thequestions posed in the introduction ofthis report, we will examine the followingfour aspects of the work done by MISEand the partner districts in some detail:

1. The development of teacher leader-ship through preparation of teams of“Leader Teachers” for each school;

2. The development of teacher leader-ship through involvement of allteachers of science in professionaldevelopment;

3. The development of teacher leader-ship through the involvement ofteachers in district planning, develop-ment and delivery of district profes-sional development, and the develop-ment of curriculum frameworks andassessment tools; and

4. The preparation of principals tosupport the reforms in their schools.

We will examine how MISE’s strate-gies have affected leadership in theschools and districts, particularly theroles that teachers play.

The DeThe DeThe DeThe DeThe Devvvvvelopment ofelopment ofelopment ofelopment ofelopment ofTTTTTeacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leaders in thes in thes in thes in thes in theSchoolsSchoolsSchoolsSchoolsSchools

In the early 1990s, science was not ahigh priority for most K-8 educators inNew Jersey and Pennsylvania. There waslittle state leadership for reformingscience education in either state, andthere were no statewide movements toreform science education in the elemen-tary and middle grades. Neither state hadadopted science content standards.Further, the two states’ assessment sys-tems focused only on basic skills inreading, writing, and mathematics. At thedistrict level, science was considered acore subject, but was given considerablylower priority than reading, writing, ormathematics. Three of the four partnerdistricts had no science supervisors.Many teachers within the districts lackedsophisticated science knowledge andsufficient skill to guide inquiry-basedlearning.

MISE used several strategies todevelop, strengthen, and sustain leader-ship in the districts. Its strategies werebased on the principle that high-qualityscience instruction is inquiry-based andrequires teachers to possess ample con-tent knowledge and pedagogical skills.

During its first year, MISE staffhelped local educators envision a newapproach to science education by spon-soring teams from each district to attendan institute offered by the NationalScience Resources Center (NSRC) wherethey were exposed to the concept of


6

inquiry teaching and new curriculummaterials. At the NSRC institute, theteams began work on a strategic plan forthe reform of science teaching. MISE thenassisted the partner districts with theselection and purchase of new instruc-tional materials for elementary scienceand supported some related local profes-sional development activities. MISEpersonnel also created a resource centerenabling staff in the partner districts toreview and test new instructional materi-als without purchasing them.

Although the provision of curriculummaterials and resources was a positivefirst step, it quickly became clear to MISEstaff that they needed to provide moredirect support for teachers to produce thedesired changes in their practice. One ofthe major challenges to be addressed wasthe weak content knowledge of many K-8science teachers. MISE determined thatbefore student achievement in sciencecould increase, teachers needed to bebetter equipped with instructional tech-niques, content knowledge, and curricu-lum materials.

A strategy soon emerged to meetthese needs, the core of which was thedesign of the Leader Teacher Institute(LTI). MISE and its advisory committeerealized that the changes in teaching andlearning they were seeking required staffdevelopment that was focused, continu-ous, and enduring. Based on the premisethat all students should experiencestandards-based science instruction, theLTI was designed to prepare teams ofLeader Teachers to be more effectivescience teachers and to be instructionalchange agents within their schools anddistricts by serving as role models, advo-cates, coaches, and instructors.

The LTI, which began in the summerof 1995, was a voluntary, three-yearprofessional development experience fora set of three or four teachers from eachelementary and middle school in the four

partner districts. Summer and academic-year sessions focused on fortifying teach-ers’ content knowledge and skills, devel-oping their leadership skills to supportreform, and broadening their understand-ing and competence in reforming scienceeducation in their schools. Personalrelease days during the academic yearpermitted participating Leader Teachersto design their own follow-up profes-sional development experiences. Inaddition to the opportunities for learningand influencing policies in their schoolsand districts, other incentives for partici-pation included academic credit offeredby local colleges and universities, andstipends provided through a NationalScience Foundation (NSF) grant andMISE. Principals and other district ad-ministrators were invited to attend LTIsessions and to participate in planningschool-level reform activities with theirLeader Teachers.

The LTI had three core components: athree-week summer institute held eachyear for three years, three full-day andthree half-day sessions held during theacademic year, and four days of releasetime for professional development activi-ties designed by and for each participant.As part of their summer experience,approximately 140 teachers participatedin intensive inquiry-centered strands inlife, earth, or physical science. LeaderTeachers attended one of these strandseach summer and completed all thestrands over the three years. In the sum-mer of 1997, time was also allocated forpedagogy, assessment, equity issues, theintegration of science and literature,communication skills, leadership, andapplications of technology.

An instructional team composed of ascience content specialist and threepractitioners led each of the three strands.Instructional teams included MISE staff,outside experts, Leader Teachers, andother district staff members. The numberof Leader Teachers serving on these


7

instructional teams increased from 1996to 1997. Each year, the instructional teamsworked together for five to seven monthsbefore the summer sessions began todesign or revise curriculum and instruc-tion, and met daily during the summersessions to refine their program. LeaderTeachers who served on the instructionalteams reported that their confidence,knowledge, and skills dramaticallyincreased as a result. The instructionalteam experience encouraged individualLeader Teachers to assume greater leader-ship roles in their districts — serving asin-service presenters and panelists atnational conferences, and making presen-tations at state conferences. By 1997,teacher leadership was beginning tobecome self-sustaining. However, MISEstill needed to support Leader Teachersand define their roles, which did notalways happen.

In the third and final summer, theinstructional teams emphasized theconnections across the three strands,helping Leader Teachers conceptualizethe central ideas spanning the life science,earth science, and physical science con-tent strands. In addition, the LeaderTeachers were asked to analyze thedesign of the strands and the instruc-tional strategies used by the instructionalteams. Increased emphasis was placed onbuilding the capacity of Leader Teachersto develop equitable classrooms and tocommunicate with their peers.

The concept of the LTI is consistentwith the theory of distributed leadership.As discussed earlier, conceptions ofschool leadership are moving away fromthe notion of a single leader in a tradi-tionally hierarchical school organizationto the more complex idea of distributedleadership shared by multiple individualsat different levels of the organization(Spillane, 1999). MISE envisioned that theLeader Teachers would increase theircontent knowledge, develop the “habitsof mind” of science learners, and provide

leadership within their schools. Theywere expected to share what they werelearning with their colleagues and to helpbuild professional cultures in the schoolsthat supported implementation of in-quiry, reflection, and collaboration.Through the LTI, MISE provided LeaderTeachers with cultural capital that theycould pass on to peers and new teachers.

The DeThe DeThe DeThe DeThe Devvvvvelopment of Human,elopment of Human,elopment of Human,elopment of Human,elopment of Human,Social, and Cultural CapitalSocial, and Cultural CapitalSocial, and Cultural CapitalSocial, and Cultural CapitalSocial, and Cultural Capital

An important step in developingdistributed leadership is providingteachers with capital that defines theirroles and provides them with neededresources. The critical capital that pro-vides a basis for leadership is intangible,consisting of knowledge and skills (hu-man capital), understanding of new rolesand social networks for support andsharing (social capital), and the adoptionof specific norms, values, and behaviors(cultural capital). As we shall see, MISEprovided the Leader Teachers with allthree forms of capital, but was moresuccessful in developing the humancapital of the Leader Teachers than inproviding them with the social andcultural capital needed to assume leader-ship roles in their schools.

There also was some tangible capital— in the form of money, instructionalmaterials, lesson plans, and laptop com-puters. The fact that MISE could payLeader Teachers to go to training and payinstructional team members for their timewas a significant factor in recruitingpeople. MISE also paid the teachers toattend Peer Teacher Workshops (PTWs),professional development that began in1996 and will be discussed later. Havinglaptop computers allowed Leader Teach-ers to access information from theInternet, communicate with peers, andgain expertise in using technology. In thefirst year of the LTI, MISE obtained e-mailaccounts for each Leader Teacher and


8

sponsored an electronic listserv. In par-ticular, the listserv was an important wayof building and supporting a sense ofprofessional community among LeaderTeachers, enabling them to communicateand share ideas about teaching, curricu-lum, and assessment, and to explore thewealth of information available on theInternet. The listserv and e-mail were alsoan effective means of disseminatinginformation across the Partnership,allowing teachers to increase their com-fort level, and have meaningful experi-ences, with technology.

The ImThe ImThe ImThe ImThe Impact of the Leaderpact of the Leaderpact of the Leaderpact of the Leaderpact of the LeaderTTTTTeachereachereachereachereachers in their Schoolss in their Schoolss in their Schoolss in their Schoolss in their Schools

CPRE evaluators collected substantialevidence that Leader Teachers took theirnew responsibilities seriously and at-tempted to provide leadership in theirschools and districts. In a follow-upsurvey of Leader Teachers in 1995 (threemonths after the first LTI), Leader Teach-ers indicated that they perceived theirroles in the following order: sharing andcollaborating with peers, practicing whatwas learned in the LTI, serving as acatalyst for change, continuing to learnand improve, and supporting otherteachers. Based on interviews withLeader Teachers in 1997, CPRE learnedthat the teachers assumed roles that couldbe categorized into five areas: serving ason-request resources, providing outreachto individual teachers, providing indi-vidual outreach school-wide, providingteam outreach school-wide, and servingdistrict-wide needs. We discuss each ofthese areas below.

• On-request resources. Virtually allthe Leader Teachers saw themselvesas providing on-request resources forother teachers in their schools. Theytried to be available to assist teachersin their own schools with any science-related issues that arose. For mostLeader Teachers, this was just onedimension of their role, but some

Leader Teachers did not feel comfort-able going beyond this role. Theseteachers felt this was the extent oftheir capability and they were uncom-fortable with the expectation that theyshould take on other leadership roles.These Leader Teachers explained thatthey joined the LTI to improve theirclassroom teaching, and the leader-ship expectation emerged only later inthe experience.

• Outreach to individual teachers.Many of the Leader Teachers reportedthat they worked on an individualbasis with other teachers in theirschools. Most Leader Teachers re-ferred to this work as coaching, inwhich they worked with anotherteacher over time to help them teachone of the science modules, to designor modify assessment tasks that weremore authentic or more closelyaligned with the unit, or to developcurriculum. These Leader Teachersfrequently mentioned that the otherteachers were grade-level partners, or,in a few cases, student teachers.

• Individual outreach school-wide.Leader Teachers reported organizingor implementing activities for groupsof teachers or for the whole school.One Leader Teacher commented in a1997 interview that “[her] role isbuilding strength at my grade level ina cooperative vein.” Leader Teachersfrom several schools reported collabo-rating on curriculum with groups ofteachers who had participated in thePTWs. A special education LeaderTeacher described how she facilitateda workshop on inclusion and inquiry-centered science for her school’s staff.Another Leader Teacher explainedhow she assisted in revamping thedistrict’s science curriculum. SeveralLeader Teachers mentioned how theycoached groups of teachers at theirgrade level or provided ongoingsupport to graduates of the PTWs.


9

• Group outreach school-wide. LeaderTeachers in about half of the Partner-ship schools worked as teams toprovide activities for their school orcommunity. These activities varieddepending on the school context andneeds. In several cases, the collabora-tion involved the design and imple-mentation of science fairs or sciencenights for students, families, andinterested others. Leader Teachers atanother school organized sciencecareer days for students. In anothercase, Leader Teachers worked to-gether to develop a school-widestructure for developing and sharinglesson plans. In a few cases, LeaderTeachers developed rich themeswhich they used to model reformstrategies for other teachers. Thesestrategies included eliciting studentquestions, using assessment to gaugeprior knowledge, inquiry-centeredactivities, and linking curricula tostandards. Group outreach was verystructured in some schools and moreinformal in others. One LeaderTeacher said, “In the whole school,there has been tremendous growth.As a group of Leader Teachers, we didit [provided support] as necessary. Weall did different things to help withinthe building. It’s very informal, butwe all get around.” This is evidence ofsuccessful distributed leadership; theeffects of the LTI trickled down toother teachers.

• District-wide influence. A number ofLeader Teachers were involved inreform at the district level. This role,however, was mentioned less fre-quently in interviews with LeaderTeachers than the other roles de-scribed above. Most of the district-wide influence was in the form ofinvolvement with professional devel-opment. Several Leader Teachersdescribed how they led district in-service days. Leader Teachers alsoassumed an increasingly prominent

role in planning and leading PTWs intheir districts. Leader Teachers in eachdistrict served on science curriculumand frameworks committees. LeaderTeachers were an integral part of theirdistricts’ representation on the MISEadvisory committee which bringstogether leadership groups from thefour partner districts to discussstrategic issues and formulate policiesand other reforms. A few LeaderTeachers mentioned that they repre-sented their districts by speaking atstate science conferences.

Principal SupporPrincipal SupporPrincipal SupporPrincipal SupporPrincipal Support ft ft ft ft for Leaderor Leaderor Leaderor Leaderor LeaderTTTTTeachereachereachereachereachersssss

Research has repeatedly shown thatprincipals play key roles in instructionalchange in their schools. Their level ofinvolvement often dictates whetherattempts to change instruction succeed ornot. Principals reported various ways inwhich they supported the work of thePartnership and Leader Teachers in theirschools. Several principals met regularlywith their Leader Teachers, as one princi-pal described, “to foster the Merck initia-tives throughout the school.” An elemen-tary principal said, “The Leader Teachershave had a presence in the building. Theyare role models for others to emulate.”One principal organized the schoolschedule so that Leader Teachers could goto other teachers’ classrooms to supporttheir science instruction. Several princi-pals from different districts mentionedthat schools and districts needed to betterdefine the roles of Leader Teachers. Thisissue of role definition will be examinedlater in a discussion of the limitations ofthe Leader Teacher strategy.

The importance of principals and thevariation in their support was revealed ininterviews conducted with Leader Teach-ers in 1996. Some Leader Teachers men-tioned principals and school structuresthat were highly supportive of their


10

efforts. Other Leader Teachers describedsituations in which school leadershipseemed to be in constant transition and,consequently, supporting Leader Teacherswas not a high priority. Still other LeaderTeachers said their school administratorsseemed to have no interest in using themin any capacity beyond their own class-rooms.

Leader Teachers from several schoolsacross the Partnership described receiv-ing outstanding support from theirprincipals. “Our principal is 150% behindthe Merck initiative,” said one LeaderTeacher. A principal in another schoolheld monthly meetings with her LeaderTeachers and involved them in schooldecision-making about science. A LeaderTeacher from this school commented,“She treats us as leaders. She looks forneeds in the building and uses us asleaders in the school.” Another LeaderTeacher described how her principal“meets with us to discuss science issuesbefore they are brought to the rest of thefaculty. We are appreciative that she asksfor our input first. She respects us for ourefforts with Merck.”

Other Leader Teachers describedindifferent administrative support in theirschools. One Leader Teacher said, “It ispassive support. They are supportive butnot involved.” Another Leader Teacherfelt that the continual change in theadministrative staff made stable supportof high-quality instruction impossible. “Itis not intentional,” she said, “But thingsare so vague, you just don’t know fromone day to the next, and these things playagainst the initiatives such as Merck.” Inseveral other cases, Leader Teachers feltthere was no place for teacher leadershipin their schools, and that authority restedwith the administrative staff, not thefaculty.

Later, MISE held leadership seminarsto help school administrators learn aboutinquiry-centered instruction, share strate-gies for supporting reform and teacher

leadership, and openly discuss issuesthey face in changing science teachingpractices. However, at the time that theLeader Teachers were being asked toassume new roles, principals had notreceived this training.

In 1998, CPRE evaluators did ananalysis of school-based factors thatinfluenced inquiry-based instruction.Principal support was the most powerfulinfluence among the school-level predic-tors of reform-based teaching practice. Inthe science teaching model, principalsupport was statistically highly associ-ated with reform-based teaching practice.Teachers in schools with supportiveprincipals were far more likely to useinquiry-centered practices than teachersin schools where the school leader wasnot supportive.

The ImThe ImThe ImThe ImThe Impact of the Lpact of the Lpact of the Lpact of the Lpact of the LTI:TI:TI:TI:TI:MixMixMixMixMixed Red Red Red Red Resultsesultsesultsesultsesults

Did participation in the LTI training alterthe classroom practice of the Leader Teachers?

In order to assess whether participa-tion in the LTI was related to instructionalchange, CPRE evaluators observed andrated teachers using an authentic peda-gogy framework. Each lesson was exam-ined for the presence of the followingaspects of instructional quality:

• Higher-order thinking skills,• Substantive conversation,• Deep knowledge, and• Connections to the world.

Science activities in the Leader Teach-ers’ classrooms looked very different toobservers than those observed in theclassrooms of teachers who had notparticipated in any Partnership-spon-sored professional development. In theclasses of Leader Teachers, there weremore visible examples of higher-orderthinking, more evidence of substantive


11

conversation between students andteachers and among students, and moreevident attention to the complex ideasunderlying deep understanding. Ingeneral, after three years, the practice ofLeader Teachers was more inquiry-centered.

Did the Leader Teacher initiative havepositive effects on instructional culture,practice, and student learning?

Part of CPRE’s evaluation plan ofMISE for 1998-1999 called for a more in-depth look at the work of Leader Teach-ers. Although their formal professionaldevelopment had been completed,Leader Teachers were expected to con-tinue to carry out their work in theirclassrooms, schools, and districts. CPREand MISE agreed that it would be valu-able to survey Leader Teachers abouttheir leadership activities, their comfortin their roles, and the amount of supportthey were receiving. In the spring of 1999,the population of Leader Teachers still inthe districts (122 teachers) was surveyedwith an instrument developed by CPREwith collaboration from MISE staff. Thesurvey focused on Leader Teachers’continued commitment to the work ofstandards-based science reform, how theywere conceiving of and practicing leader-ship in their schools, and their percep-tions of school and districtsupportiveness.

Several themes were apparent in thesurvey data as well as in interview data.Although teachers reported that theirroles were often ambiguous, it was clearthat distributed leadership had begun toevolve in the schools. Leader Teachersreported that the LTI had a strong impacton their own subject matter and peda-gogical knowledge, and they acceptedand internalized the responsibilities theywere prepared to assume. In an open-ended question on the survey, LeaderTeachers were asked how they promotedstandards-based science during the 1998-

1999 school year. The most frequentresponses were: curriculum committeeparticipation, presenting at departmentmeetings and in-service days, buildingplanning team membership, serving as amentor teacher, facilitating PTWs, partici-pating in professional developmentcommittees, and coaching of colleagues.

While designing the Leader Teachersurvey, CPRE evaluators had a series ofconversations with MISE staff to identifyboth the key elements of the leadershipwork Leader Teachers were expected tocarry out and the sequence in whichthose elements would likely occur. Basedon these discussions, CPRE constructed ahypothesis that Leader Teachers wouldwork through four phases with theircolleagues. First, they would assess theneeds of other teachers in their school.Second, they would attempt to increasethe awareness of other teachers in theimportance of standards-based science.Third, they would identify steps tochange the practices of other teachers intheir school. Finally, they would activelywork with other teachers in their schoolto change their teaching practice.

The Leader Teacher survey exploredwhether or not the hypothesized se-quence of the work reflected their actualexperience. Less than half of the LeaderTeachers reported feeling fairly well orvery well prepared to assess the needs ofother teachers in their school. LeaderTeachers felt the most adequately pre-pared to increase the awareness of othersabout the importance of standards-basedscience (77% reported being at least fairlywell prepared) and to actively work withother teachers in their schools to changepractice (72% reported being fairly wellprepared). Yet, only about half of theLeader Teachers reported that they wereat least sometimes identifying steps tochange the practices of other teachers intheir school and were actively workingwith other teachers in their school tochange their teaching practices.


12

Nevertheless, most Leader Teacherswere committed to their work as LeaderTeachers. In 1999, over 80% said that theyfelt committed to continuing their leader-ship work in the schools, even though theformal LTI ended in 1997. Most of them(95%) reported feeling comfortableadvocating standards-based science totheir colleagues. They tried to carry outtheir work as advocates and mentors inspite of the fact that they did not alwaysfeel fully prepared to do it or supportedby their principals. Conventional wisdomsuggests that individuals need to feelprepared before they do something —whether it is to teach in a certain way orto carry out leadership activities —especially in a public way. Yet, the datafrom Leader Teachers suggests that whilethey did not feel fully prepared to carryout the reform work assigned to them, alarge percentage were still trying to do it.

Why were Leader Teachers persistingin doing leadership work despite theirshaky feelings about their capacities to doit? CPRE suggested two hypotheses. First,Leader Teachers believed so strongly inthe goals of inquiry-based reform thatthey were willing to actively support it inspite of their feelings of inadequacy. Forexample, Leader Teachers felt that the LTIexperience strongly increased theirpersonal subject matter and pedagogicalknowledge, and it is distinctly possiblethat this personal comfort with scienceallowed them to overcome their qualmsabout spreading the ideas in theirschools.

Second, Leader Teachers felt strongpersonal commitment to the Partnership,which helped them overcome theiruncertain feelings about their prepara-tion. Interviews with Leader Teacherswere full of statements of admiration forindividuals on the MISE staff and senti-ments of allegiance to these individuals.

Is training teams of teachers to be “con-tent experts” and leaders in elementaryschools an effective strategy for producingcultures of distributed leadership?

The answer is that it depends. First, itdepends on the attitudes, style, andagenda of the principal. Interviews withLeader Teachers suggested that theformality of their roles in their schoolswas highly situational. In some schools,Leader Teachers were explicitly recog-nized by their principals as the scienceleaders in the school and were reliedupon for their expertise. In other schools,Leader Teachers’ roles were strictlyinformal, with no recognition or supportfrom the principal.

Second, it depends on the status,skills, and preferences of the individualsselected. The choice of who would bedesignated Leader Teachers was madequickly and not always appropriately.MISE asked teachers to submit applica-tions if they wanted to become LeaderTeachers, and the final selection of LeaderTeachers was made by a committee atMISE. Principals provided input into thefinal selection. However, teachers whowere new, had weak science contentknowledge, and were not perceived as“leaders” already in their schools wereamong those selected. Because of theselection process, the Leader Teacherstatus was sometimes granted rather thanearned which made it difficult to initiallygain respect from other teachers. Thismade the role less legitimate which mayhave slowed teacher collaboration anddistributed leadership. The Leader Teach-ers themselves were ambiguous abouttheir roles as leaders, and most werefocused on being more proficient withintheir own classrooms. In fact, MISE staffsuggested to Leader Teachers that, indefining their roles, they should focus ontheir own classrooms the first year, theschool the second year, and the district


13

the third year. In this way, teachers wouldhave the opportunity to practice inquirywithin their own classrooms, gainingconfidence and skill before working withcolleagues. Altering a role without alsoaltering the formal position descriptionmay have hindered progress.

Finally, it also depends on the amountof time available for inquiry-based in-struction, planning, and collaborationwith peers. In the LTI follow-up survey of1995, Leader Teachers reported that oneof the biggest barriers to inquiry-basedinstruction was lack of time for planningand instruction. Leader Teachers statedthat they lacked the time to both teachand lead well. School staff were some-times discouraged by the effort requiredto schedule collegial activities withoutvisibly violating the multiple norms towhich they needed to adhere.

Overall, the strategy of using teams ofLeader Teachers to stimulate instructionalchange across their schools has been amixed success as it is highly dependenton the support of the principal and thecareful selection of Leader Teachers.

Expanding PrExpanding PrExpanding PrExpanding PrExpanding ProfofofofofessionalessionalessionalessionalessionalDeDeDeDeDevvvvvelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentelopmentOpporOpporOpporOpporOpportunitiestunitiestunitiestunitiestunities

In the third year of the Partnership,MISE secured a grant from NSF’s LocalSystemic Change program. The grantmandated that MISE-sponsored profes-sional development should reach ap-proximately 80% of the teachers in thePartnership schools. This was the equiva-lent of engaging over 800 teachers from34 schools in the four partner districts,over five years in 100 hours of high-quality professional development inscience, mathematics, and technology.

This dramatic expansion of profes-sional development was accomplishedthrough the development of the PTWs.The purpose of these workshops was totrain teachers in inquiry-based instruc-tion and to further increase local capacityto support instructional reform. Thecontent of the PTWs was determined bythe district teams in consultation withMISE staff. These teams used teachersurveys, supervisory reports, and perfor-mance data to determine the areas of thecurriculum that needed attention. From1997 onward, the districts took on in-creased responsibility for recruitingteachers and managing the logistics of thePTWs.

Each PTW was designed by an in-structional team consisting of two ormore accomplished teachers (oftenLeader Teachers), science content special-ists, district supervisory and curriculumspecialists, or MISE staff. MISE supportedthese teams by conducting a professionaldevelopment design meeting each springand providing consultation to the teamsbefore and during the PTWs. MISE staffalso monitored the PTWs and used CPREfollow-up evaluations to identify areasneeding attention. Through both summerinstitutes and academic-year follow-upsessions, strong relationships were builtbetween teachers and the instructionalteams, and PTWs reinforced the exchangeof ideas among colleagues.

Organized as one-week summerinstitutes, in general, the content of thePTWs was based on the science modulesused by the districts in specific gradelevels. A key goal of the PTWs was tofamiliarize teachers with the reform-based instructional materials. Buildingthe content knowledge of workshopparticipants was another major goal ofthe Partnership’s professional develop-ment program. Teachers typically at-tended one workshop of their choice andalso were offered two days of follow-up


14

during the school year. Between 1996 and2002, the Partnership districts offered 166PTWs which served an enrollment of3,175 teachers. Since the total eligiblepopulation of teachers during this period,including those who left or entered thefour systems, was about 1,100 teachers,this means, on average, each teacherattended about three summer PTWs.Many teachers attended five or six. Overthis six-year period, the Partnershipprovided, on average, over 30 hours ofprofessional development in science foreach classroom teacher responsible forthe teaching of science (CPRE, 2002).

The ImThe ImThe ImThe ImThe Impact of PTpact of PTpact of PTpact of PTpact of PTWWWWWPPPPParararararticipation on Classrticipation on Classrticipation on Classrticipation on Classrticipation on ClassroomoomoomoomoomPracticePracticePracticePracticePractice

CPRE researchers used a classroomobservation instrument developed byHorizon Research, Inc. (HRI) for thenational evaluation of NSF’s Local Sys-temic Change project. The instrumentwas used to rate the effectiveness ofclassroom lessons and had a 7-pointsummary assessment in which a 1 wasineffective instruction and a 7 was exem-plary. The scale was demanding, andscores of 5, 6, and 7 were considered to behigh, indicating use of inquiry in theclassroom. The score on the scale repre-sents a cumulative judgment made by asingle observer based on the design of thelesson, its implementation, the subject-matter content of the lesson, and theculture of the classroom.

Examining the ratings of observationsconducted in the Partnership schoolsbetween 1997 and 1999 reveals that theratings of teachers who participated inPTWs climbed steadily. In 1997, theaverage rating for Peer Teacher observa-tions was 3.44. In 1998, it rose to 4.08. In1999, the rating increased again to 4.24.Clearly, the PTWs were impacting class-room practice, and the “average” teacherswho participated in PTWs were using

inquiry and many were doing it withconsiderable sophistication.

Building TBuilding TBuilding TBuilding TBuilding Teacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leadereacher Leadershipshipshipshipshipthrthrthrthrthrough the Use ofough the Use ofough the Use ofough the Use ofough the Use ofInstructional TInstructional TInstructional TInstructional TInstructional Teamseamseamseamseams

From 1996 through 2001, MISE sup-ported the development and work of theinstructional teams that led the PTWs.Each team had at least three members —two experienced teachers and a contentexpert. Typically, the two teachers on theteams had taught the science module thatwas the focal point of the workshop andsome had experience conducting profes-sional development in their schools anddistricts. MISE staff or associates pro-vided science expertise. The three mem-bers of the instructional teams wereexpected to share roles. The intention wasto give the two teachers as much respon-sibility for the design and implementa-tion of the workshops as the contentexperts had. These teams modeled thepedagogy they were working to getteachers to use, and participants con-ducted investigations, worked in coop-erative learning groups, analyzed instruc-tional activities against standards, andreflected on their current practices andwhat they were learning.

Figure 1 shows the general make-upof the instructional teams from 1996-2001.The composition of these instructionalteams evolved over time; in the first fewyears, the teams drew heavily on MISEstaff and external consultants, but alsoincluded a number of Leader Teachers.The external consultants included indi-viduals from national curriculum devel-opment and technical assistance organi-zations, other science organizations, localand regional university faculties, andother school districts. By 2001, the teammembers for the science PTWs werepredominantly teachers from the fourpartner districts. Thirty-five of the 39instructional team members offering


15

science PTWs in the summer of 2001 weredistrict staff including 6 from local highschools.

The Quality of the InstructionalThe Quality of the InstructionalThe Quality of the InstructionalThe Quality of the InstructionalThe Quality of the InstructionalTTTTTeamseamseamseamseams

Based on the sessions observed byCPRE staff and interviews with partici-pants, most PTW leaders were perceivedby participants as knowledgeable andskilled experts. Effective instructionalteam members had the potential torekindle teachers’ thirst for more content.One participant in a highly rated work-shop commented:

This has been perhaps one of the bestworkshops I have attended because of thefacilitator’s preparedness, style, andknowledge of the classroom and program.

I feel much better prepared to implementthe program, to assess it, and to share myknowledge and techniques with my peers.

The leader of this workshop wassharing knowledge with teachers whothen returned to their schools and spreadwhat they learned. This is the type ofcapital (human, social, and cultural)sharing that Spillane, Hallett, and Dia-mond (2000) explain is a core part ofdistributed leadership. In this way, MISEcould fulfill its goal of spreading itsvision to as many teachers as possible.

The following excerpt from an inter-view with one of the participating teach-ers is typical of participants’ responses:

The instructional team did a wonderfuljob. This is the second time that I’ve beenin a workshop with [instructor]. She

Figure 1. Composition of Instructional Teams forScience Workshops, 1996-2001

4 5 611

20

4

7

14

24

43

40

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Num

ber

District Staff

Consultants

Source: CPRE, 2001.


16

makes us all feel that we are physicists.Certainly, all aspects [of the workshop]can be used, but I found the sciencecontent and inquiry-centeredinstructional techniques to be mosthelpful for me. Being able to revisitcontent in this new light helped to refreshmy memory and made clearer for me thegreat value of using inquiry-centeredmethods.

CPRE evaluators interviewed instruc-tional team teachers in order to betterunderstand whether this strategy wasimproving science instruction in thedistricts. The results of these interviewssuggest that the strategy is successful.First, the teachers reported that they wereclear about the skills they brought to theinstructional team and that they weresatisfied with their role on the team. Asone teacher remarked:

I was part of the basic decision-makingprocess. We were given a basicframework, but we were allowed to shape

it from the ground up within ourdiscipline, including what our themeswould be and what activities we mightuse. We all brought to the table what wehad or could find.

All of the teachers said that they wereinitially uncomfortable as instructors butquickly grew into the role. Teachersidentified ways to encourage their col-leagues to show greater initiative, andstarted to look beyond their own class-rooms to consider how their skills couldbenefit their districts.

Participants completed evaluationsurveys at the end of each PTW. Mostparticipating teachers reported beinghighly satisfied with the PTWs across theyears. Figure 2 illustrates participantresponses to questions about the instruc-tional team that led their sessions.Ninety-six percent of the participants saidthe instructional team’s knowledge ofscience instruction was either very orextremely effective.

89 89 87

96

0

25

50

75

100

Content Knowledge Ability to Model Inquiry Ability to Respond toFeedback

Skill in InstructingAdult Learners

Percent

Figure 2. Percentage of PTW Participants Who Found Selected Aspects oftheir Instructional Team’s Delivery Very Effective or Extremely Effective


17

In addition, almost 90% of the partici-pants felt that the instructional teamswere very or extremely effective in theirability to model inquiry-centered instruc-tion, in their ability to respond to partici-pants’ questions and feedback, and intheir skill in instructing adult learners.

Each year, some of the instructionalteam members were conducting work-shops for the first time, and despiteMISE’s efforts to provide them withguidance and support (through an inten-sive three-day retreat to plan the PTWsand the inclusion of content experts onthe instructional teams), there was alwayssome unevenness in the delivery. How-ever, the overall impression of CPREevaluators was that only a modicum ofquality was sacrificed in the short run inorder to build greater district capacity inthe long run. By encouraging teachers tolead workshops, MISE was simulta-neously improving their teaching skillsand providing potential peer coaches forthe schools. MISE was continuing todistribute leadership as a way of buildingcapacity.

Instructional TInstructional TInstructional TInstructional TInstructional Team Membeream Membeream Membeream Membeream Membersssssas Leaderas Leaderas Leaderas Leaderas Leaders in Schoolss in Schoolss in Schoolss in Schoolss in Schools

Interviews conducted with membersof instructional teams indicated that theywere assuming leadership positions intheir schools and districts. Many hadalready been playing such roles as theyhad been Leader Teachers, but others hadnot. They reported that being a memberof an instructional team gave them a newstatus among their peers as well asincreased confidence in their knowledgeand skills. The experience of designingand leading professional developmentsessions prepared them to lead profes-sional development in their schools. Italso linked them to networks of schooland district leaders who were involved inplanning the PTWs for their districts anda larger network of educators who wereworking on these tasks across the Part-nership.

One instructional team member whohad not been a Leader Teacher describedhow her role had been transformed:

I have always liked teaching science, andoccasionally when I did something thatinvolved parents, my principal tooknotice. But since I have been doing thePTWs, he asks my advice all of the time,gave me a student teacher for the firsttime, and even asked me to do a workshopon science for an in-service day.

Another who had been a LeaderTeacher said her colleagues now viewedher differently:

When I was in the Leader Teacherprogram, I think that some of the otherteachers felt that I was trying to makemyself important and resented me or justignored me. But working in the PTWsseems to have changed how they look atme. It took awhile but they now seem torecognize that I know something aboutscience teaching and they are coming tome for help. Two have even asked me intotheir classrooms to observe.

Many of the instructional team mem-bers reported a change in how they wereviewed by their colleagues and an in-crease in requests for assistance or infor-mation. It appears that feedback abouttheir role in the PTWs has persuadedother teachers that they have knowledgeand skill that sets them apart and, as aconsequence, teachers are willing toconfer leadership roles on them.

InInInInInvvvvvolving Principals inolving Principals inolving Principals inolving Principals inolving Principals inInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional Leadershipshipshipshipship

While MISE focused on the develop-ment of teacher leadership, it did notneglect principals. MISE realized from thebeginning that principal support wasimportant for the success of the teachertraining it was doing. Principals wereinvolved with MISE informally in theearly years. However, professional devel-


18

opment opportunities for school adminis-trators were not provided until 1996. Ateam of principals worked with MISEstaff to develop two seminars to helpadministrators better understand thePartnership, standards-based instruction,and strategies to support reform inscience at the school level. Then therewas a long hiatus in the work withprincipals. That hiatus, combined withconsiderable turnover among principals,meant that there were many schoolleaders who did not have deep under-standing of MISE’s work or the Partner-ship. To meet this need, a new Principals’Institute that offered an ongoing series ofseminars focused on MISE’s vision forinstruction and on improving classroominstruction was launched in 2001.

Although MISE has recognized thecritical role of principals, it has focusedmost of its attention on curriculumreforms, the development of teacherleaders, the provision of professionaldevelopment for teachers, and districtpolicy. As a consequence, until 2001,MISE engaged central office personneland teachers in the work far more than ithad principals. The unstated assumptionseems to have been that superintendents,central office staff, and Leader Teacherswould win over the principals, gain theirsupport for the reforms in science, andprovide them with whatever preparationthey needed. While MISE worked withthe principals at the beginning of itspartnership with the four districts, pro-viding some awareness sessions andencouraging them to attend PTWs, therewas not a focused effort to prepare themto lead instructional improvements inscience until 2001.

CPRE conducted an analysis thatexamined the relationship betweenseveral school factors, including principalsupport and reform-based teaching. Theresults showed that a conducive schoolenvironment in general and principalsupport in particular were the key factorsthat influenced reform-based teaching

practice. The importance of principalsupport was the most powerful findingfrom the analysis of school-level predic-tors of reform-based teaching practice.Principal support was statistically highlyassociated with reform-based scienceteaching practice. Teachers in schoolswith supportive principals were far morelikely to use inquiry-centered practicesthan teachers in schools where the schoolleader was not supportive.

The RThe RThe RThe RThe Role of Principals andole of Principals andole of Principals andole of Principals andole of Principals andDistributDistributDistributDistributDistributed Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadered Leadershipshipshipshipship

By 2000, there had been considerableprincipal turnover within the districts,and a number of principals had notreceived the training provided in the firstyears of the Partnership regarding itsvision of good instructional practice inscience. Because of the state assessmentprograms, many of these new principalswere focused on improving studentperformance in reading and mathematicsand gave little attention to science. Asreported above, there also was consider-able unevenness in how principalsworked with and supported teacherleaders. Clearly, not of all of the princi-pals in the Partnership schools under-stood and practiced distributed leader-ship when it came to improving instruc-tion.

In response to these concerns, thePartnership sponsored a two-day insti-tute in June 2001 for school principalsthat was attended by 41 principals andsome central office staff. Designed inresponse to a CPRE recommendation thatthe Partnership provide more directtraining for principals, the Principals’Institute was planned by a committee ofprincipals from the four districts andMISE and CPRE staff. MISE’s sessionfocused on the Partnership’s vision ofgood science instruction and what to lookfor in the classroom. Principals weregiven opportunities to view, assess, anddiscuss science lessons. This experience


19

revealed the wide variation in whatprincipals looked for in classrooms, whatthey valued, and how they judged whatthey saw.

The Principals’ Institute was em-braced by both new and veteran princi-pals. One noted:

The June Principals’ Institute wasinspiring, helpful, motivational, useful,current, research-based. A greatexperience. The information was relevantto science and other disciplines. It wastime to sit with our own colleagues. Yourarely get a chance to do that, andactually talk about issues that affect us.Change is more forthcoming as a result.

This principal’s words showed that herecognized the value inherent in buildinga community of practice.

By bringing principals together, thePartnership was supporting and nurtur-ing a community of common practitio-ners. By following up on their interest,the Partnership could help the principalsbecome a force for sustaining and deep-ening the work of instructional improve-ment.

Principals’ SupporPrincipals’ SupporPrincipals’ SupporPrincipals’ SupporPrincipals’ Support ft ft ft ft for theor theor theor theor thePPPPPararararartnertnertnertnertnershipshipshipshipship

Between April and October 2001, 20principals (15 elementary and 5 middleschool principals) in the four schooldistricts were interviewed at length.Although there were differences bydistrict, grade level, and experience,several common themes emerged fromthe interviews. In general, the vast major-ity of principals were intellectually andpedagogically excited about the Partner-ship and expressed strong commitmentsto inquiry-based learning. They seemedto have acquired at least a general under-standing of MISE’s vision of good scienceinstruction although most had difficultydistinguishing between “hands-on

science” and inquiry. They reported thatteacher and student interest in sciencewas higher than it ever had been before.It is difficult to adequately describe theprincipals’ excitement about the effectsthe Partnership was having on theirstudents and teachers. They were effu-sive, exuberant, and inspired by changesthey had witnessed in their buildings.Principals in the partner districts werebeing transformed into instructionalleaders. Principals recognized this changein themselves, they liked it, and attrib-uted it to MISE.

Some principals noted:

Children love science. I love seeing hands-on, inquiry-based science. It’s so cool tosee the kids in action. And it’s neat seeingteachers allowing kids to investigate anddiscover.

—Elementary school principal

What has impressed me is theprofessionalism and dedication to teacherslearning and influencing their teachingand helping student learning. Theabsolute commitment of Merck! They areto be thanked. If we grab the kids and letthem have fun within the learning,they’re hooked.


…we’re now approaching science in awhole different way. The old textbookapproach is out; students think and lookat things analytically. We know how to doan observation and articulate what are inthose observations. It’s a pleasure toobserve the science lessons. The teachersare more knowledgeable about contentand process. What it does, it gives themthe tools for how to learn. They’re gettinga philosophy of inquiry.


It’s [Partnership] had a positiveeffect…It’s been a very effectivepartnership. A lot of teachers have grown.Had it not been for MISE, teacherswouldn’t have tried hands-on…I had to


20

learn to touch the worm! And pretendthat it didn’t bother me. It’s beenenlightening.


When one elementary school princi-pal was asked what she sees when sheobserves a science class, she said:

When I walk into a classroom now, I see alot of sharing and dialogue andexcitement and the teacher roving andasking higher-level questions and havingthe kids ask, “Let’s see what happens.” Alot of charts and data collections andconnections to everyday life. I’m seeingevidence of their science in theclassrooms. Collaborative efforts betweenstudents. The collaborative piece, teamingwith teachers, sharing discoveries, talkingabout their findings, sharing theirscientific methods…

A middle school principal, asked forhis definition of “good science instruc-tion,” answered:

I want to see student enthusiasm, contentmaterial being covered, inquiry-based. Idon’t expect to see lecture, upon lecture,upon lecture. I want to see experiments. Ilike to see kids working with each other,especially in pairs, to see challengingquestions.

These interview data are consistentwith the results of the HRI survey ofprincipals in the Partnership districts.Since 1995, HRI has annually surveyedthe principals in the Partnership districts.On the survey, almost all of the principalsindicated that hands-on activity andinquiry were important for effectivescience instruction. Most said that con-crete experiences should precede abstractconcepts and that developing students’conceptual understanding was important.They indicated that they were willing toaccept the noise associated with an activeclassroom and nearly 90% said thatencouraging student questions was moreimportant than eliciting correct re-

sponses. Over 90% of the principalsresponding said they felt well-preparedto help teachers implement the nationalscience standards. Most importantly, over90% reported that their schools weremaking good progress in improvinginstruction in science.

Generally, the principals wanted moreinvolvement and more responsibility.Without the deep involvement of theinstructional leaders of the schools — theprincipals — the program’s sustainabilitycould have been problematic in spite ofthe changes in district policy and thecurrent attitudes and practices of theteachers. To truly understand the work ofthe Partnership, to understand the differ-ence between “hands-on” and “inquiry-based,” to know what to look for inscience classes, principals needed to beincluded in the serious aspects of thework.

Changes in the DistrictChanges in the DistrictChanges in the DistrictChanges in the DistrictChanges in the DistrictLeaderLeaderLeaderLeaderLeadership Cultureship Cultureship Cultureship Cultureship Culture

Changes in leadership were alsooccurring at the district level. MISE staffwere working directly with district staffto build internal capacity, and in theprocess also altered the structure ofleadership in the districts. At MISE’ssuggestion, the districts formed teamscomprised of teachers, principals, andcentral office staff who collaborated toguide the work in each district and todevelop strategic plans for improvingteaching and learning in science. MISEalso held biannual meetings with anadvisory committee consisting of teamsfrom each district, including superinten-dents, science supervisors, principals, andteachers.

MISE developed strong substantiverelationships with the superintendents ofthe four partner districts. In all four cases,the superintendents were highly support-ive of the Partnership’s work. Most


21

superintendents participated regularly inthe work of the MISE advisory commit-tee, which signaled their active support ofthe initiative. Several superintendentstook it upon themselves to report Partner-ship progress to their local boards ofeducation. The director of MISE metindividually with superintendents todiscuss issues important to the Partner-ship, such as devising ways to formalizethe leadership roles of Leader Teachers,planning ways to keep the local schoolboards informed about the work of thePartnership, and developing strategies tomaintain the momentum of the profes-sional development work.

MISE staff worked closely with teamsfrom each district to develop strategicscience plans focused on curriculum andinstruction, student achievement andparticipation, policies and practices, andparent and community support. Theydeveloped strategies and identified theresources and individuals necessary tomeet their objectives. This process en-couraged districts to make better use ofdata and to think more systemically andcoherently about the larger reform pic-ture.

MISE increased the involvement ofschool-level personnel (principals andteachers) in district planning and deci-sion-making. MISE respected teacherexpertise and used certain teachers whowere well-versed in inquiry-based scienceinstruction as professional developmentleaders. Teachers were involved in devel-oping curriculum frameworks and plansfor common assessments. By recruitingadditional instructional team membersand providing them with training andsupport, MISE helped to build internaldistrict capacity. MISE was clearly engag-ing many elements of the system —teachers, schools, districts, science ex-perts, and other stakeholders — in orderto build leadership. Such systemic in-volvement led to systemic efforts whichbrought about systemic change.

SummarSummarSummarSummarSummary of Majory of Majory of Majory of Majory of MajorFindingsFindingsFindingsFindingsFindings

In this report, we have described thesteps that MISE took to develop a moredistributed model of instructional leader-ship in the partner schools and districts.Here we return to the seven researchquestions that have guided our datacollection.

1. What strategies did MISE employ todevelop teacher leadership in science?How did these strategies change overtime?

MISE supported and helped to dis-tribute leadership in the four partnerdistricts from the inception of the Partner-ship. It began by involving teachers indistrict planning and then developed anintensive program to develop teacherleadership in each school. The LTI pre-pared cadres of Leaders Teachers whowere expected to spread what they hadlearned to other teachers who had notparticipated in professional development.Although this initiative produced unevenresults depending largely on the skillsand dispositions of the teachers and theattitudes and style of their principals, itset the stage for a more ambitious profes-sional development program. In the thirdyear of the Partnership, MISE secured aNSF grant, which required that MISEreach 80% of the district teachers throughprofessional development. This led to theexpansion of professional developmentopportunities via PTWs and the furtherdevelopment of teacher leadershipthrough the instructional teams.

MISE’s strategies have changed overtime in ways that allowed it to reachincreasing numbers of teachers, whilealso establishing new expectations aboutthe roles and responsibilities of teachers.


22

2. How effective were these strategies increating new roles and increasedinfluence for teachers? How didteachers’ roles change? What ob-stacles or problems were encoun-tered?

These strategies became more suc-cessful with each passing year as MISElearned from feedback provided byteachers, principals, districts, and from itsevaluators at CPRE. Over time, the rolesof teachers changed dramatically. Becauseof MISE’s involvement, teachers assumednew roles as leaders and colleagues intheir schools, and in the activities of thecentral offices. In the past, most teachersacted in isolation in their classrooms,preferring to keep their instructionprivate and not to share with or observeother teachers. Asking for feedback fromanother teacher was often perceived as asign of incompetence. MISE changed thatand encouraged teachers to continuallylearn from one another, especially inscience. As more and more teachers weretrained, they shared knowledge with oneanother. In short, teachers became lessisolated than in the past. The teams ofLeader Teachers, the study groups thatworked on assessment, and the commit-tees that planned PTWs all contributed toa cultural shift in which responsibilitiesare collectively shared and work is acollaborative endeavor.

Many Leader Teachers quickly as-sumed leadership positions in theirschools, but some did not. There wereseveral reasons that some Leader Teach-ers could not quickly transform intoleaders. Many teachers were not appro-priately selected for the LTI. In addition,their role was not often clearly defined.Leadership status for teachers during thisstage was more imposed than earned.The experience of the LTI shows thattraining is not enough; the ground has tobe prepared by working with the princi-pal and by establishing the organizationalconditions for distributed leadership.

3. To what degree were strategies suc-cessful in developing professionallearning communities in science inwhich individuals with contentexpertise were enabled as leaders?

After teachers’ content knowledgeand pedagogical skills were strengthened,they often shared what they had learnedwith teachers who were new or who hadnot attended the trainings. This is evi-denced by CPRE’s findings that by thesixth year of the Partnership, most of thesmall minority of teachers who were notparticipating in PTWs also were changingtheir practice and using inquiry methods(CPRE, 2002). In addition, teachersformed informal networks with oneanother at the professional developmentsessions and continued to stay in contactafter the sessions ended. The follow-upsessions encouraged these links as didMISE’s electronic network, which in-cluded the provision of e-mail accounts,listservs, and laptop computers.

Professional communities developedboth formally and informally. Teachersshared ideas in study groups, and whilelearning the science modules together ormodeling effective techniques of inquiry-based instruction for one another. Teach-ers and principals were also involved inmore formal types of professional com-munities such as the Merck advisoryboard meetings, curriculum frameworkmeetings, and assessment groups work-ing to develop common assessments.Through professional development,teachers could share human, social, andcultural capital, sharing that is necessaryfor distributed leadership to work. MISEwas instrumental in jumpstarting thegrowth of professional communities, andthese communities became a central pathtoward distributed leadership.

4. What role did principals play in thiseffort?

Although principals were involved inthe beginning of the Partnership, it was


23

not until 1996 that MISE addressed theirrole as instructional leaders proactively.MISE arranged principal seminars in 1996as well as a Principals’ Institute in 2001 toshare MISE’s vision and the concept ofinquiry-based instruction with them. Theinstitutes focused on helping them under-stand the difficulty of observing class-room instruction and recognizing legiti-mate inquiry from mere activity, intro-ducing them to coaching strategies, andhelping them recognize that they neededto draw on the expertise of accomplishedteachers. This investment by MISE helpedprincipals recognize the necessity andbenefit of supporting teacher leaders.

5. To what degree has MISE succeededin changing the leadership culture inthe central offices of the districts?

Many teachers participated in Part-nership activities at the district level suchas working on the strategic plan, design-ing and delivering professional develop-ment, assisting with the performanceassessment pilot, serving on curriculumframework and revision committees,selecting curriculum materials, develop-ing science pilot projects, planning schoolevents and projects, and attending profes-sional conferences and meetings.Through the Partnership, MISE changedthe leadership structure and culture in thedistricts, increasing local commitment toscience, building the capacity to offerprofessional development, and creating anew respect for teacher expertise. In somerespects, the Partnership was moresuccessful in establishing cultures ofdistributed leadership at the district levelthan it was in the schools.

6. How effective have these strategiesbeen in altering district capacity tosustain the work and taking it toscale?

MISE increasingly involved districtsin the planning and follow-up of leader-ship development in their schools. By2001, local capacity had increased to the

point where the districts could sustain theplanning and delivery of the PTWs andthe follow-up support on their own. Thedistricts increasingly gained ownership ofthe reform efforts to build teacher leadersin their community — a necessary step ifdistricts are to sustain this work on theirown. All four districts ran PTWs on theirown in 2002, and are planning them for2003. All four districts have extended thisapproach to supporting instructionalreform to other subject areas.

The last question — what can welearn from MISE’s experience about theconditions under which distributedleadership takes hold and flourishes? —deserves special attention, and thereforeis the focus of the next, and final, sectionof this report.

Lessons Learned ALessons Learned ALessons Learned ALessons Learned ALessons Learned AboutboutboutboutboutInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional LeaderInstructional Leadershipshipshipshipship

MISE’s efforts to build, strengthen,and spread leadership over the past 10years was a success. At every step of theway, MISE gathered feedback fromteachers, principals, districts, and CPREin order to learn what strategies weremost useful and which had limitations.

Each year, increasing numbers ofteachers were exposed to professionaldevelopment and asked to spread thisknowledge within their schools. MISEbecame more proactive over the years,while at the same time allowing districtsto assume control over the design andexecution of much of the professionaldevelopment. Through MISE-sponsoredprofessional development, teachersstrengthened their science content knowl-edge and their pedagogical skills ininquiry-based instruction. Many teachersreported that collegiality within schoolsincreased.


24

Elmore (2000) describes five prin-ciples underlying the concept of distrib-uted leadership. Each principle corre-sponds with a strategy that MISE used, aprinciple that guided or drove its work,or a lesson learned along the way. Theseguiding principles, then, are a useful wayto discuss the lessons and themes thatemerged over the past decade duringMISE’s efforts to distribute leadership.

1. The purpose of leadership is theimprovement of instructional practiceand performance, regardless of role.

Through the Partnership with MISE,central office staff in the four districtsbecame more focused on improvement ofinstruction and began to collaborate withteacher leaders to plan professionaldevelopment and support for improve-ment. Instructional improvement iscentral to MISE’s theory of leadershipand this drove its work with central officestaff, principals, and teachers. MISEparticularly focused on developing theknowledge and skills of teachers (andprincipals) and moving them into leader-ship roles where they could champion thechanges in instructional practice andculture that the Partnership was seeking.

2. Instructional improvement requirescontinuous learning. Learning is bothan individual and a social activity.

MISE and the Partnership have basedtheir entire strategy on the premise thatcontinued learning and improvement ofpractice are fundamental professionalobligations, and they have recognizedboth the individual and social dimen-sions of learning in their approach toinstructional improvement. They havemodeled these ideas in their own behav-ior by working collaboratively, by payingattention to feedback, and by makingrevisions to their strategy and to thepeople, processes, and materials that theyhave used.

The Partnership is somewhat uniquein having a 10-year existence, so that thefour partners have learned a great dealabout effective professional developmentand supporting changes in classroompractice over that time. The Partnershiphas provided opportunities for individuallearning but also has supported struc-tures that brought people together tocollaborate. One example is at the districtlevel. District teams were formed thatincluded individuals who played manydifferent roles. Another example is theformation of the PTWs. Teachers fromacross schools participated in the PTWsand then reconvened as networks withinschools. A central force behind the PTWswas to reach many teachers and bringthem together — within and betweenschools. Another structure that enabledcollaboration was the LTI which trained acadre of teachers who shared knowledgewith peers in their schools. Also, teachersparticipated in study groups that devel-oped new assessment tools.

Teachers became more comfortablewith collegiality, communicated moreopenly, and became less afraid of expos-ing their teaching styles and concerns topeers. The PTWs enabled teachers toengage in collective learning which issuch a critical part of successful systemicchange. Elmore (2000) makes an impor-tant point that “privacy of practice pro-duces isolation; isolation is the enemy ofimprovement” (p. 20). MISE also valuedbringing teachers together and makingthem more interdependent.

3. Learning requires modeling.

Elmore (2000) emphasizes that leadersneed to model techniques, as well asdesired values and behaviors. MISE usedskilled teachers and experts in the field asinstructors for the teacher professionaldevelopment. These teachers sharedhuman, social, and cultural capital withteachers, who then spread this capital toother teachers in their schools. As dis-


25

cussed before, teachers became morecomfortable modeling instructionaltechniques for one another in order tochange instruction. Modeling and otherforms of sharing were a means to this end(inquiry-based instruction) and the needfor privacy or fear of judgment wasoutweighed by the collective good.

In the early years of the Partnership,what was missing were similar opportu-nities for modeling of leadership forprincipals. This gap was addressedthrough the Principals’ Institute, whichprovided principals with opportunities tosee good practice and internalize it.

4. The roles and activities of leadershipflow from the expertise required forlearning and improvement, not fromthe formal dictates of the institution.

MISE encouraged districts andschools to make effective use of teachers’expertise. By preparing teachers to beleaders in schools, by involving teachersin district planning and developmentactivities, and by using accomplishedteachers to lead professional develop-ment, MISE altered perceptions aboutwhat kinds of expertise were needed andwho possessed them.

During the LTI, teachers were notalways selected into leadership positionsappropriately. MISE asked principals forinput into final selection of Leader Teach-ers. Some Leader Teachers who werechosen were new to the school or theteaching field, or had no knowledge ofscience. When leaders had been poorlyselected, their leadership status seemedmore imposed than earned, and otherteachers did not perceive them as leaders.Some teachers lacked content knowledgeand leadership skills, and change was notas likely to occur. Later on, schools anddistricts chose leaders based on theirexpertise — using experienced or skilledteachers as instructional team members.

5. The exercise of authority requiresreciprocity of accountability andcapacity.

According to Elmore (2000), account-ability for change needs to be reciprocal.The leader needs to know how to dowhat is expected of the learner and needsto model what is expected. In its earlyyears, the Partnership focused on thecapacity of the Leader Teachers but didnot work with principals to define whatLeader Teachers would be held account-able to do. As a consequence, the role ofthe Leader Teachers was somewhatvague. These teachers were taking onnew responsibilities and felt pressure tofulfill an ambiguous role. In some in-stances, the principals and Leader Teach-ers worked out this reciprocity andLeader Teachers were delegated theauthority they needed to do the workexpected of them. In other sites, theLeader Teachers lacked the knowledge,skill, or social status to carry out theseresponsibilities. In still other instances,their principals simply did not give themthe authority or support that they neededto do the work. The principals who werebeing held accountable for performancewere unwilling to share their authoritywith those who had the capacity to helpothers improve instruction. However,MISE was more successful in defining theroles of instructional team members inthe PTWs, and this strategy did contrib-ute to the development of distributedleadership in some schools and in thedistricts.

OvOvOvOvOverall Summarerall Summarerall Summarerall Summarerall Summaryyyyy

In sum, MISE has learned over thepast decade that distributed leadership —both in schools and in districts — works.It produces good results as measured bythe quality of the professional develop-ment and the curriculum and assessmenttools produced, the successful recruit-ment of teachers into intensive profes-sional development, and the emergence


26

of teacher-led professional communitieswithin and across the schools. MISE hadconsiderable success in introducingdistributed leadership at the district level.Initially, they simply required it, but overtime, the value of teacher expertisebecame apparent to district leaders andthe norms of leadership changed. Itseems unlikely that these districts wouldabandon the new patterns of decision-making that have developed.

But MISE also has learned that dis-tributed leadership can be difficult to putinto place in schools. In the schools, theeffects of the Leader Teacher program andthe PTW program on patterns of leader-ship were somewhat uneven. In many ofthe 34 schools, distributed patterns ofleadership pre-existed the Partnershipbut were strengthened by its activities. Insome, new patterns of distributed leader-ship emerged and appear to be continu-ing, but in some others, distributedleadership has not replaced more tradi-tional hierarchical forms.

The experience also shows that asupportive environment has to be createdwhich means preparing the principal forworking with expert teachers, and alsointroducing the concept in a manner thatis acceptable to the school staff. The MISEexperience shows that this requirescareful selection of individuals for vari-ous leadership roles — teachers should bechosen appropriately based on individuallevel of knowledge, skill, or experience.In addition, continued support of leadersis required. The investment in people asleaders should be long-term for the sakeof the individuals as well as the reform.Lastly, school administrators should beinvolved early on. It is clear that intro-ducing distributed leadership into aschool requires the active support of theprincipal. The best-trained and most-skilled teacher experts/leaders may notbe able to carry out their roles if they donot have support from their administra-tors. The principal can be involved in

instruction and the teachers can becomeleaders, yet the principal is still a centralsource of inertia in the building.

Over the past 10 years, MISE hasstrengthened the connection betweenleadership and instruction in the Partner-ship districts and schools, and the struc-tures for supporting instructional im-provement are more robust and moreeffective as a result. As Elmore (2000)argued, instructional change can occuronly if leadership in the school willsupport such change.

MISE has succeeded in developingdistributed leadership through its sys-temic approach to the reform of scienceinstruction. Teachers’ content knowledgeand pedagogical skills improved, theywere recognized as leaders in theirschools and in their districts, and princi-pals became more involved in instruction.Elmore (2000) observes that distributedleadership has not been the dominantmodel in most public school systemsdespite much research showing the valueof this kind of model. The MISE experi-ence shows that the dominant model canbe changed, and that the change is worth-while.


27

RRRRRefefefefeferenceserenceserenceserenceserences

Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (2001). Steady work: A reporton the seventh year of the Merck Institute forScience Education, 1999-2000. Philadelphia:Author.

Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-tion (CPRE). (2002). A report on the eighthyear of the Merck Institute for Science Educa-tion, 2000-2001. Philadelphia: Author.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new struc-ture for school leadership. Washington, DC:The Albert Shanker Institute.

Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic achieve-ment: Restructuring schools for intellectualquality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P. (1999). Distributed leadership:Toward a theory of school leadership practice.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B.(2000, April). Forms of capital and theconstruction of leadership: Instructionalleadership in urban elementary schools.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond,J. B. (2001). Investigating school leader-ship practice: A distributed perspective.Educational Researcher, 30(3): 23-28.

Stricherz, M. (2001, September 12). Princi-pals’ training designed to boost instruc-tional leadership. Education Week.

Documents

Teacher Leadership as a Strategy for Instructional ...cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr53.pdfTeacher Leadership as a Strategy for Instructional Improvement: The Case of the Merck