2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx

271
6Leading Change
in Education
. Andersen Ross/Blend Images/Corbis
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Explain the concept of differentiated leadership as it applies
to schools.
2. Examine the roles for teacher leaders in school contexts
today, and propose what skills and
attributes are needed for teachers to be successful in those
roles.
3. Assess the barriers for teacher leaders working in studio
classroom-type environments as
peer mentors.
4. Explain at least four criteria necessary for sustainable
leadership that contribute to sustainable
improvement in systems such as schools.
5. Discuss the flaws in a typical “one-shot” principal
observation/evaluation approach with
teachers, and propose a more meaningful, goal-oriented means
of collaborative mentoring to
improve teacher assessment.

co-photo
co-cn
co-box
co-cr
co-ct
CO_CRD
CT
CN
H1
CO_TX
CO_NL
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 271 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Chapter Introduction
Dr. Washington is a first year principal in an urban middle
school in the Midwest. He is a
former band director at a nearby high school and understands
the value of collaboration and
cooperation that students learn when they are part of a marching
band. His goal is to fos-
ter that collaboration in his new role as a principal. The school

he is leading, however, has
always been managed as a top-down, hierarchical system, with
little or no opportunities for
teachers to offer ideas for improving the school or collecting
data to inform teaching. There
are no professional learning communities, although grade level
teams do meet monthly to
discuss schedules, most particularly assemblies and field trips.
Dr. Washington believes that
some things must definitely change so that his faculty members
take more ownership of their
school. He has read about the term “distributed leadership,” but
he has never seen it in action.
“Where do I start?” he thinks, sitting at his desk in mid August
before the first teacher work
day begins.
Dr. Washington is not alone. There are many school leaders who
are learning, often on the job,
about how to facilitate authentic change that everyone in the
school community understands,
engages in and learns from. This chapter addresses selected
contemporary trends regarding
leadership in education for the 21st century. The focus is not
just on leadership generically, but
rather on the notion of leading for change. There are thousands
of essays, research articles,
and books explaining types of leadership, the attributes of great
leaders, and the competencies
required for leaders in education and in other professional
fields. The selection of this chapter’s
article excerpts is intended to evoke dialogue from multiple
perspectives on leading change,
as practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. The chapter
does not presume to discuss the
entire scope of leadership in schools but rather focuses on the

integration of teachers as leaders
who affect school culture, who understand the context in which
they work, and who can learn to
cooperate with building and district administrators to improve
learning and teaching.
The chapter begins with an article by a principal who outlines
the general trends emerging in
educational leadership early in this century. LaQuanda Brown
describes the idea that leadership
can be transformational, and, as the principal’s job is evolving
and expanding, leadership must
also be shared. She names the underlying premise for all the
pieces in this chapter that, though
now obvious, has not always been articulated: All leadership
initiatives must be focused on the
ultimate goal of increasing student learning.
Research is crucial as we stretch the boundaries of the roles for
teachers. Margolis and Doring
study a studio classroom model in which teacher leaders teach
K–12 students while their
peer teachers watch and learn. This research describes the shift
that happens when experienced
teachers assume new roles as mentors and assessment experts in
collaboration with university
researchers who are monitoring the process of peer and teacher
leadership.
Dufour and Mattos discuss the role of subject-matter experts as
teacher leaders and propose
that professional learning communities (PLCs) are a viable and
valuable approach to leading for
change that focuses on teaching and student learning.
Collaboration continues to be a resound-
ing theme across chapters in this volume as it is here in the

discussion of leadership.
Andy Hargreaves comments on the positive changes in the field
and outlines the need for
sustainable leadership in the context of social justice goals,
echoed by Sharratt and Fullan.
photo-caption
photo-box-right-thin
photo
box-1
BX1_H1
BX_TX
sec_t
kt
i
bi
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 272 5/21/14 3:16 PM
The concept of sustainability in the face of change in education
is critical to practitioners and
policy makers as new mandates and programs continue to
appear.

Sharratt and Fullan describe an often overwhelming challenge in
school environments today,
that is, what to do with the amount of student achievement data
available to improve learning
and teaching. The authors discuss “second change agents” in a
distributed leadership model,
in which teachers themselves build a culture of learning as
leaders.
Consistent with other chapters in this book, authors in this
chapter support the notion of innova-
tion in curriculum, instruction, and assessment, as long as such
innovation is shared, grounded
in research, and focused on the links between teaching,
assessment, and student learning. Inher-
ent in such innovation is the underlying theme of collaboration
and learning environments in
which data, teaching approaches, research, and assessment tools
are disseminated, critiqued,
and tested collectively. This is an important principle as the
digital learning environment, which
has the potential for both collaboration and isolation, becomes
more central to students’ lives
and informs the nature of transformational leadership in new
ways.
Voices From the Field: Teacher Leaders
Tammy Bresnahan, Director of Research and Professional
Development at A. D. Henderson
School, Boca Raton, Florida
Different school leaders handle teacher leadership in different
ways. It really depends on
the leader of the school. Because if the leaders are not

interested in lifting teachers up,
empowering them, it’s a completely different thing. So, there
are leaders who want to lift
people up but are also afraid of giving up control. They are
afraid that if they give up con-
trol, then the quality might be compromised. Then there are
school leaders who don’t want
to share any power.
My current principal basically says, “You can do this job so
much better, so much more effi-
ciently than I, why wouldn’t I want to give you that power to do
the things that are going
to make you love your job even more?” She’s careful about who
she does that with; she has
given some leadership roles to some who haven’t been able to
manage them, and she has
had difficult conversations with them. She really tries to build
them up and support them.
People who didn’t see themselves as leaders have become
leaders, because she has given
them a pathway to do what they do best.
It’s really interesting about the role of the school leader in
empowering teacher leaders.
That said, the typical classroom teacher has no idea what these
so-called teacher leaders
actually do. I hear it all the time, “What does she even do?” “Do
you even know what she
does?” The school leader needs to be able to say, “I don’t know
if you know this or not, but
let me tell you what she actually does.”
Teacher leadership also gives teachers still in the classroom the
idea that they have oppor-
tunities, too, if they ever want them. The school leader needs to

make sure that teachers
know what we do. We need to be more visible about teacher
leadership and who gets these
positions. Teacher leaders are really important cogs in the
wheel, in how a school runs.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 273 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Section 6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement
6.1 The Case for Teacher-led School Improvement,
by LaQuanda Brown
Introduction
LaQuanda Brown’s article is an excellent introduction to the
theme of this chapter, because she
introduces many of the terms and concepts that explain what it
means to “lead change in educa-
tion” in the 21st century. Among the ideas she discusses are
transformational leadership, shared
leadership, school leadership teams, and teacher leadership.
Brown acknowledges that even though principals may want to
share responsibilities, it is not
always easy to build leadership capacity and to make it possible
for others in a school to offer
constructive solutions to problems. The author invites schools
to focus on improvement by exam-
ining student achievement data and then asking a series of
“why” questions to evoke dialogue
that teachers and administrators can discuss together.
The author wrote this article in 2008. It provides a principal’s
perspective on this familiar trend

in education at a time when the notion of teacher leadership was
just beginning to be embraced
in districts around the country. Brown is a principal herself in
Macon, Georgia, and represents an
increasing group of principals who are committed to teachers as
leaders in their schools.
Excerpt
The following is an excerpt from Brown, L. (2008). The case for
teacher-led school improvement.
Principal, 87(4), 28–32.
One of the new buzz phrases in education is “teachers as
leaders.” While this
term intrigues educational professionals, it is not a term that
should be used
loosely. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) contend that
leadership is con-
sidered to be vital to the successful functioning of many aspects
of a school.
Therefore, retaining effective teachers and developing them into
leaders is
essential for school improvement, which will ultimately lead to
school suc-
cess. And given the expanded roles and responsibilities of
principals, it is cru-
cial that district and school administrators cultivate teachers to
successfully
share leadership responsibilities.
Leithwood (1994) identifies the four I’s of school leadership—
individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,
and ideal-
ized influence—that are essential for schools to be successful in
the 21st cen-

tury. Leithwood’s four I’s are what he referred to as the
elements of transfor-
mational leadership. In a school where the principal is focused
on building
the leadership influence of teachers, the principal must teach,
exhibit, and
train teachers on the intellectual stimulation of school
leadership. Through
the intellectual-stimulation approach, the principal helps the
school staff to
have vision and foresight in looking at old problems in new
ways by working
together to create, identify, and implement innovative, workable
solutions.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 274 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Build Capacity and Consensus
Administrators must build instructional capacity and
instructional consensus
among school staff. However, many administrators are still at a
loss on how
to accomplish this daunting task. The principal has to fulfill
many complex
administrative responsibilities each day. Some decisions must
be made imme-
diately, while other decisions may allow the principal to include
input from
teachers and other stakeholders. Gabriel (2005) writes that it is
useful to let
someone else propose the change and that the principal should

not be the
only person in the school to offer solutions.
For example, there may be a concept that the principal truly
believes in, such
as building time into the school day during which every student
and teacher
is involved in independent reading. However, before the
principal brings this
proposal to the faculty, he or she should find out if other
members of the school
staff share this same philosophy. If other staff members share
the principal’s
philosophy, then the issue should be introduced to the staff as a
capacity-
building activity. In addition to teachers, custodians and other
staff members
may also agree with the proposal. If this is the case, staff
members (other than
the principal and teachers) may introduce the initiative to the
faculty to begin
critical conversations on implementing the instructional practice
into the
daily school program. Administrators must be cognizant of the
fact that true
school improvement involves everyone on the school staff, and
must therefore
incorporate every member of the staff in the decision-making
process.
Develop a Leadership Team
An additional component of creating an atmosphere of shared
leadership,
where teachers work collectively with administrators to
implement research-

based instructional practices and methodologies, is to create an
effective
school leadership team. A strong and purposeful leadership
team is able to
adequately sustain the responsibilities and challenges of
becoming an effec-
tive school. To create a strong leadership team, the principal
must create an
atmosphere of shared data collection and analysis, shared
decision-making,
and shared respect among the team. For example, the principal
must create
an environment where teachers feel comfortable offering
suggestions, asking
questions, and providing feedback. In addition, the atmosphere
must be con-
ducive to teachers sharing the responsibility of identifying
problems, offering
viable solutions, and working collaboratively to create a plan to
implement
agreed upon solutions.
DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) write about the
power of col-
lective intelligence, or the practice of professionals working
collaboratively
to solve problems within an organization, as well as the practice
of “harness-
ing the power of collective intelligence that already resides in
the school to
solve problems.” Similarly, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
(2004) describe
the concept of agreed-upon processes that “enhance
communication among
community members, provide for efficient reconciliation of
disagreements,

and keep the members attuned to the current status of the
community.” This
research reflects the well-known fact that successful schools
have a culture
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 275 5/21/14 3:16 PM
of collaborative, sound, research-based decision-making
practices that focus
on the needs of the school. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and
Karhanek (2004) note
that “these schools made astonishing progress with existing
amounts of time
and funding. They did not wait for someone from the outside to
give them the
magic formula, the perfect program, or more resources.” Part of
the culture
of change and excellence involves a great deal of teacher
collaboration and
faculty ownership of identified issues and possible solutions.
Groom Teacher Leaders
School principals must create a cadre of teacher leaders for each
grade level
and for each content area. The teacher-leader selection process
must be based
on a variety of leadership traits and instructional qualities and
must be equi-
table, nonbiased and honest.
More important, the teacher leaders and the members of the

school’s leader-
ship teams should have an innate desire to serve, should have a
high level of
commitment to the total functioning of the school, and should
have a spirit of
dedicated volunteerism.
The principal should not be the only person choosing the
teacher leaders. A
principal may choose to have the school staff nominate teacher
leaders, or per-
haps there may be a teacher-leader nomination committee.
Teachers should
also have the option to decline the opportunity to become a
teacher leader
without fear of consequence. Furthermore, the teacher-leader
selection pro-
cess should result in teacher leaders wanting to serve the school
by taking
part in the school-improvement group. Essentially, this practice
gives teachers
the opportunity to operate as joint and collaborative leaders.
In order to build capacity for instructional knowledge and
delivery, which
ultimately will positively affect student achievement, there must
be a system
in place for ongoing training of effective, standards-based
instructional plan-
ning, standards-based delivery, and standards-based assessment.
In addition,
teacher leaders should be trained by a variety of experts,
including the prin-
cipal, assistant principal, instructional coach, district- or state-
level content
expert, district- or state-level instructional coordinator, and

district- or state-
level master teacher.
The teacher leaders must also be provided the opportunity to
train teachers
within the school day. Trainings must be nonthreatening,
collaborative, and
data-driven. Teachers should also be given opportunities to
provide open and
honest feedback on trainings. For instance, summative
assessments may indi-
cate that teachers need training on differentiated instruction or
on deliver-
ing best instructional practices to students. The teachers,
however, may voice
concerns on needing training that focuses on delivering quality,
collaborative
instruction or on the use of standards-based assessments and
standards-
based grading practices.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 276 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Therefore, in order to build quality consensus, teachers must
have a voice in
the types of training offered by teacher leaders. Thus, teacher
leaders should
provide and implement quality training systems that offer a
balance for class-
room teachers and that answer to the data as well as to the
teachers’ requests.

Teacher-led leadership includes the process of teachers
analyzing, disaggre-
gating, and conversing about students’ achievement, attendance,
and disci-
pline data. In addition, a part of the data conversation must
address cause,
or the “why” questions. The “why” questions must be
qualitative, substan-
tial, and correlated to the ongoing data-collection process. This
is a practice
that is also not easy to master and may call for training. For
instance, if the
school-achievement data indicates high literacy and low math
scores, it is
not enough for teachers and administrators to know this fact.
The team must
work together to figure out why this is the case and what plan
can be collab-
oratively created and implemented that speaks to the causes.
For example, a “Needs Improvement” school that may also be
involved in
restructuring will require the school staff to have a central,
daily focus on data
collection and data analysis. Due to the status of the school’s
progress, focus-
ing on student-achievement data is a critical step to increasing
student per-
formance. Listed below are examples of some of the “why”
questions that the
school might use to help guide and inform instruction:
• Why are the male students scoring higher than the female
students
in science?

• Why are the female students not interested in the science
curriculum?
• Why are the female students outperforming the male students
in
reading?
• Why are the majority of the students at performance level 3 in
sci-
ence male?
• Why are the male students only interested in certain types of
writing,
such as writing poetry?
• Why are the students that are scoring the lowest on summative
and
formative assessments also the students who miss the most
school
days during the course of the school year?
• Why is less than 10 percent of the total school population
performing
in the highest category of student achievement?
• Why are more of the fiscal resources being used to address the
areas
of low student performance?
These are examples of the types of questions that must be asked
and seriously
considered by teachers and administrators to ensure that a
school begins to
focus and move into a large-scale school-improvement planning
and imple-
mentation phase.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 277 5/21/14 3:16 PM
References
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004).
Whatever it takes: How professional
learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington, IN:
Solution
Tree.
Gabriel, J. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring.
Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 30(4), 498–518.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School
leadership that works: From research to

results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Source: Brown, L. (2008). The case for teacher-led school
improvement. Principal, 87(4), 28–32. © 1999–2013 Reprinted
with
permission. © 2008, National Association of Elementary School
Principals. All rights reserved.
Summary
The author of this article provides a rationale for distributing
leadership beyond the principal’s
office: the increasing number of tasks inherent in running a
school. She notes that principals
who move toward the inclusion of teachers as leaders must
believe in collective intelligence and
must then determine the extent to which others in the school
share that perspective.
Brown offers several specific tasks and responsibilities for
teachers as leaders, including training
teachers within the school day for “effective standards-based
instructional planning, standards-
based delivery, and standards-based assessment.” She also
describes the need for agreed-upon

processes for making decisions and reaching consensus, first
within a leadership team and then
within the larger faculty.
In Brown’s view, the principal is responsible for creating such
an environment among the staff.
She refers to the importance of certain leadership qualities or
traits that should factor into a
selection process for teacher leaders, though she does not
provide details on what those traits
might be. She writes from a principal’s perspective about the
need for collaborative leadership
where the focus is on systemic improvement.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Brown’s article addresses issues of leadership in a traditional
school building. What are the
implications for shared leadership in an online environment?
What elements of Brown’s
argument for transformative leadership apply in an online
environment?
2. How might principals identify teachers who have leadership
potential?

3. How might principals be prepared in graduate course work to
succeed as leaders in a col-
laborative decision-making environment rather than a top-down
administrative style?
4. What would you do as a school leader if a teacher leader
proposed a solution to a problem
that you did not agree with?
5. Brown writes unambiguously about the goal of using shared
leadership to improve schools
based on the effective use of standards-based curriculum and
clear goals. Are there other,
perhaps equally compelling, reasons to share leadership among
adults (and students) in a
learning environment?
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 278 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Section 6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher Leader-
facilitated Professional Development

6.2 The Fundamental Dilemma of Teacher
Leader-facilitated Professional Development:
Do as I (Kind of ) Say, Not as I (Sort of ) Do,
by Jason Margolis and Anne Doring
Introduction
Margolis and Doring are researchers from Duquesne University
in Pittsburgh, PA. They con-
ducted a qualitative study of six hybrid teacher leaders (HTLs;
teachers who both teach K–12
students and lead other teachers) in four school districts who
participated in modeling prac-
tice for peers as part of their teaching assignments (referred to
by the authors as the “studio
classroom”).
Their study underscores the challenges of teacher leaders in
terms of the support necessary from
administration, the trust required from peer teachers, and the
structure that must be in place for
teachers to learn from a studio-classroom approach to
professional development. The authors
note that the results of their study suggest a need for additional,
more targeted teacher leader-
ship studies that investigate specific kinds of leadership among

peers, and how such leadership
works in real school contexts.
Margolis and Doring reveal the difficulties of direct observation
or modeling of practice as a
means of learning from peers without a structural mechanism
for reflection and, perhaps more
importantly, without the encouragement to learn from mistakes
and failed lessons. In their
study, the authors found that mixed messages from both school
administrators and district lead-
ers suggested that teachers should learn from this approach, but
gave little indication of exactly
how that learning would take place. Resistance came from
administrators as well as union rep-
resentatives for teachers in the case study schools. Clearly, the
actual implementation of teacher
leadership models challenges the status quo of what it means to
be a teacher and how improve-
ment and teacher learning can take place within the school day.
Excerpt
The following is an excerpt from Margolis, J., & Doring, A.
(2012). The fundamental dilemma of
teacher leader-facilitated professional development: Do as I

(kind of ) say, not as I (sort of ) do.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859–882.
Abstract
Purpose: This article focuses on a specific model of teacher
leadership in
schools—the studio classroom. In answering the call for more
targeted stud-
ies of teacher leadership, the study is designed to assist
educational leaders
in putting in place the organizational and social structures that
allow teacher
leaders to have the most positive impact on teachers. Research
questions
focused on perceptions, enactment, and impact of the studio
classroom.
Research Methods: The research took place over a 2-year period
(2008–
2010), with six teacher leader-participants from four school
districts. Data
collection included individual and group interviews and
extensive on site
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 279 5/21/14 3:16 PM

observation, as well as administrator interviews. Analytic
procedures were
qualitative, grounded in the teacher leadership literature and a
sociocul-
tural teacher learning framework. Findings and Implications:
Across sites,
a diminished understanding and appreciation for the teacher
learning pro-
cess left no sanctioned space to learn from mistakes. Thus,
logistical, social,
and cultural barriers overwhelmed any studio classroom
implementation
attempts—and teacher leaders ultimately failed to open up their
classroom
doors as intended. Practical implications include a need to
reexamine the
term modeling as exhibiting qualities that encourage reflection
on teach-
ing rather than replication of teaching. Similarly, to stimulate

learning from
actual classroom practice, a new vision of teacher leadership
needs to focus
on improving rather than proving. Additionally, research on
teaching will
need to more strongly make the case that authentic teacher
inquiry more
strongly correlates with teacher and student learning than the
importation
and transmitting of “best practices.”
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, the focal point of educational reform
efforts and
teacher professional development has shifted from the
conceptual to the
practical. As decontextualized workshops and sessions were
shown to be
largely ineffective in changing teacher beliefs and practices (see
Lee, 2011;
Richardson & Placier, 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999), there has
been a move-
ment toward embedding teacher learning in the actual work of
teaching (City,

Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Morris & Hiebert, 2011).
Under this new
conception, professional development is face-to-face, embedded
in classroom
contexts, and targeted—focusing on the “core of teaching”
(Morris & Hiebert,
2011) as is experienced in realistic educational settings.
To further this more classroom-centered professional
development, teacher
leaders have been increasingly used as coaches, staff
developers, and instruc-
tional leaders. Research has documented a proliferation of both
formal and
informal “distributed leadership” in schools (Mayrowetz,
Murphy, Louis, &
Smylie, 2007; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007) in concert
with increas-
ing academic demands on students. Yet at the same time,
confusion around
these emergent roles abound (Goldstein, 2004; Margolis &
Huggins, 2012), as
teacher leader positions are often created in advance of
organizational capac-
ity to use them wisely. Thus, although there has been some

success in mak-
ing teacher leader-facilitated professional development more
connected to
successful practice, models are less developed in terms of how
to make their
work practically successful. Relatedly, teacher leaders have
long faced ongoing
dilemmas related to poorly integrated professional cultures
(Kardos, Johnson,
Heather, Kaufmann, & Liu, 2001; Lortie, 1975), latent
perceptions that team-
ing and collaborative work do not improve teaching and
learning (Conley,
Fauske, & Pounder, 2004), and larger school cultures that
emphasize individ-
ual teacher “performance” over communal responsibility for
student learning
(Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996).
* * *
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 280 5/21/14 3:16 PM

The following research questions were explored:
Research Question 1: What aspects of the studio classroom do
HTLs
enact in schools?
Research Question 2: What supports or hinders impactful
modeling by
HTLs?
Research Question 3: When studio classrooms are enacted, what
impact
do they have on teacher learning and the school change process?
Literature Review
In the following sections, we explore terminology and current
literature in
relation to the studio classroom. First, we define Level 1 and
Level 2 modeling
and differentiate between the concepts of lesson study and the
studio class-

room. Next, we explore the benefits of the studio classroom
model, and finally,
we look at common obstacles that often prevent the
implementation of the
studio classroom.
Definition of Terms
This article defines the studio classroom in relation to an
emergent frame-
work that examines different levels of teacher leader modeling
in schools
(see Margolis, 2012). Level 1 modeling involves direct
observation of teacher
leader teaching-practice with students present. These students
may be that of
the teacher leader or of a colleague. When Level 1 modeling
occurs on a regu-
lar basis in a teacher leader’s own classroom, that arena can be
considered a
“studio” or “lab” classroom. Level 2 modeling includes
instances where teacher
leaders share openly about their teaching. Specific examples
might include
the informal or formal sharing—in person or online—of student
work, strat-

egies, and lesson plans, as well as struggles and triumphs.
Students are not
present during Level 2 modeling.
* * *
The Benefits of the Studio Classroom
The educational research literature contains very few studies in
which the
studio classroom is explicitly explored. Indirectly, however,
some research
speaks to the potential benefits. For example, a recent study by
Reeves (2009)
of more than 300 teachers and administrators found that—of all
the possible
ways for teacher leaders to influence practice—“direct modeling
by colleagues
was the most powerful by far” (p. 85). Similarly, a recent study
of recipro-
cal peer coaching by Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, and Bolhius
(2009) confirms
the power of direct modeling in encouraging experimentation
with alter-
native teaching strategies—not only for the observer but the
teacher being

observed. Their research on professional development in The
Netherlands
found that “knowing that a colleague will come to observe you
in your class-
room . . . was reported to prompt the search for alternative
teaching meth-
ods for experimentation . . . to model new teaching strategies
for the coaching
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 281 5/21/14 3:16 PM
partner” (p. 251). Other research similarly concludes that
abstract profes-
sional development courses/sessions (see Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009) or
new curriculum components (see Domitrovich et al., 2009)—
without con-
current in-house, in-classroom support—fails to deliver the
types of changes
in teacher learning and practice that often comes with coaching

in concrete,
naturalistic learning situations where students are present (see
also Ander-
son & Herr, 2011).
Obstacles to the Studio Classroom
Despite the potential benefits of the studio classroom model as
inferred in
the literature, the practice has remained difficult to actualize.
Reeves (2009)
explains that “many schools ignore the power of direct
modeling by classroom
teachers as the key to high-impact professional learning” (p.
85). Although
the concept of “existence proofs” to link conceptual knowledge
to practical
knowledge seems compelling, Reeves offers one possible
explanation for the
dearth of the modeling/studio classroom practice, claiming that
many poten-
tial teacher-leaders get stuck on the question, What if my model
lessons are not
very good? (Reeves, 2009). Thus, it seems that many teacher
leaders view the
observing and debriefing, which often accompany “studio

lessons” as requir-
ing perfect practice for later replication rather than as a venue
to stimulate
discussion of problems of practice to promote teacher learning.
This fear is
often reinforced by larger economic and political forces that
have recently
suppressed authentic inquiry into teaching practice in favor of
the marketiza-
tion of “evidence-based practices” (Anderson & Herr, 2011).
Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural Teacher Learning Models
More than 20 years ago, new theories emerged that looked at
teacher learning
as being “situated” in social practice, not just in the individual
educator’s mind
(see, e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather than having concepts
be “transmitted”
to teachers for hopeful eventual implementation, situated theory
sees learn-
ing as embodied and, therefore, emerging from action in
relation to others
(Korthagen, 2010). This model necessitates teacher learning
events that are,

as Korthagen (2010) concludes, “fruitful practical experiences .
. . sufficient,
suitable, and realistic” while also being rooted with peers in
everyday class-
room life (p. 104).
As pointed out by City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009),
professions such
as medicine have embedded their learning experiences in
collaborative prac-
tice via “instructional rounds” for some time. Through specified
processes and
protocols, physicians work together to develop their knowledge
of practice, in
practice. The educational community, in recent years, has more
intentionally
borrowed these approaches to connect teacher professional
development to
“the actual work of teachers and students in classrooms” (p.
157). Oftentimes,
these learning events are mediated by peer teacher “coaches”
who engage
colleagues in what has been called a “local proof route” to
teacher learning
(Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006), focused on “small trials” where

educators
with shared problems can “learn from small mistakes rather than
large ones”
(Morris & Hiebert, 2011, p. 6). Such “job-embedded coaching”
is often
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 282 5/21/14 3:16 PM
designed to build capacity among willing teachers and to create
exis-
tence proofs that could be used to demonstrate high-quality
practice
to others . . . [using] local practice and individual learning to
foster
organizational learning, moving learning processes beyond
abstrac-
tions into practical activities. (Gallucci, 2008, pp. 555–565)
In addition to concretizing policy and theory of what should
happen in what is

happening, situated and social teacher learning allows teachers
to learn from
and with people who can not only say they have worked with
students but
are still working with students, seeking to improve instruction
in actual class-
room settings (see also Intrator & Kunzman, 2009).
This sociocultural framework helped us better examine the ways
in which
the HTLs brought the studio classroom to life (Research
Question 1), as well
as the obstacles to rooting teacher learning in peer collaborative
practice
(Research Question 2). Additionally, it provided a helpful lens
through which
to explore the potential impact of teacher leader “modeling” in
naturalistic set-
tings (Research Question 3) and whether, overall, a trial-and-
error approach
to teacher learning could be enhanced by localized HTL studio
classroom
activities.
Method

In light of the documented gaps between idealized visions of
teacher lead-
ership and the actual work of teacher leaders within schools,
this study’s
primary research questions examined studio classroom
manifestations and
impact, as well as the related supports and obstacles to HTLs.
As such, it seeks
to answer the call for “close in, fine grained studies” of teacher
leadership
(Coburn & Russell, 2008, p. 226) by focusing on one specific
model of teacher
leadership rather than the broad “distributed leadership”
category. Our quali-
tative inquiry held the primary goal of understanding the beliefs
and practices
of HTLs and their administrators in relation to the studio
classroom across
schools and within districts. Participants, as well as data
collection and ana-
lytic processes, are described below.
Participants
Over the 2 years of research, six HTLs were studied across four

different
school districts in one northwest U.S. state. These districts were
selected to
provide variety in size and socioeconomic status while also
remaining rep-
resentative of the larger state population. Selection was
initiated by the prin-
cipal investigator (PI) contacting school districts where HTLs
were being
systematically used. Names of potential participants were
supplied, and the
PI then followed up with the HTLs and their principals to secure
participa-
tion. Efforts were made to ensure variety in geographic
location, the type of
HTL, subject area and grade level expertise, and gender. As a
result, four female
and two male participants were enrolled in the study, which
represented the
teacher populations within the schools. Year 1 participants were
anchored
within one school, whereas Year 2 participants had “caseloads”
of teachers
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 283 5/21/14 3:16 PM

across multiple schools within Battleton School District (BSD).
Additionally,
the Year 1 participants were in a 50% teaching–50% leading
split, whereas
BSD participants were in a 20% teaching–80% leading
arrangement. Despite
these differences in role-structure, the analysis highlights
patterns of studio
classroom enactment that held across the 2 years of the study.
All participants and school districts were given pseudonyms.
The three Year
1 HTL participants included Melissa (middle school Language
Arts/ Social
Studies), Rob (middle school Math); and Karen (high school
Language Arts/
Social Studies). The three BSD HTLs spanned middle and high
school, and
included Sam (Math), Peggy (Social Studies), and Janet (Math).

All six par-
ticipants had been well-respected teachers within their
respective disciplines
and applied for the coaching positions when their districts
moved toward the
teacher leader-coaching model of professional development.
In addition to the six HTLs, four principals, one from each
school district, and
four district leaders—superintendent, assistant superintendent,
executive
director of curriculum, and union president—from the district
with the three
HTLs were included as participants. Inclusion of administrator
interviews
was designed to balance teacher perceptions, triangulate the
data, and main-
tain a focus on the relationship between studio classroom
activities as they
were intended within the organization and how they actually
played out in
HTL practices.
Data Collection
This research took place over a 2-year period, covering the

2008–2009 and
2009–2010 school years. In the first year of the study, three
HTLs in sepa-
rate school districts were each interviewed individually twice,
once prior to
the beginning of the academic year and once at the end of the
academic year.
Interviews were semistructured (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and
were focused on
understanding the HTLs’ perceptions of their roles, including
explaining the
ways in which they planned to directly connect their own
classroom teach-
ing to the learning of other teachers (to explore Research
Question 2, studio
classroom barriers and supports). Additionally, all three HTLs
participated in
a focus group in March 2009. In addition to interviews, each of
the first-year
participants were observed throughout the 2008–2009 academic
year 10 or
11 times, including two or three observations of their own
classroom teach-
ing. Typical observations included participation in or
facilitation of profes-

sional development events, visitations to other classrooms,
leadership plan-
ning meetings, and teaching events with their own students (to
investigate
Research Question 1, studio classroom enactment).
Additionally, participants
were asked to let the researcher know in advance if their
upcoming sched-
ule included engaging in Level 1 modeling. To understand how
leadership
viewed the role of the first-year participants, interviews were
conducted with
all three of the HTLs’ principals. Observations of scheduled
studio classroom
events and administrator perceptions of their relationship to
larger school
reform efforts were included to more thoroughly investigate
Research Ques-
tion 3 (studio classroom impact).
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 284 5/21/14 3:16 PM

In the second year of the study, three HTLs in one district were
each inter-
viewed individually twice, once prior to the beginning of the
academic year
and once at the end of the academic year. Additionally, all three
HTLs partici-
pated in a focus group in April 2010, and five
administrators/district leaders
were interviewed throughout the year. In addition to interviews,
each of the
second-year participants were observed 10 times throughout the
2009–2010
academic year, including two or three classroom observations.
Also, in both
years of the study, multiple artifacts were collected including
HTL calendars,
professional development materials, meeting agendas,
newspaper articles,
classroom assignments, school brochures, and emails. Such
document analy-
sis helped account for the use of teacher leader time, as well as
any discrep-
ancies between the theories behind the creation of respective

HTL roles and
their actual manifestation in practice.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred both during and after data collection
through a con-
stant comparative (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) method, aiming to
develop, refine,
and link codes into categories. First, we developed initial
descriptive codes
(see Miles & Huberman, 1994) drawn from the literature and
theoretical
framework. Initial iterative passes through the data focused on
the varied
types of “modeling” the HTLs engaged in, different actor’s
perceptions of the
studio classroom, and observed organizational and social
barriers and sup-
ports for studio classroom enactment.
After data collection was complete, both researchers again
individually read
and reread the data to find patterns and relationships between
organizational
plans for the studio classroom and actual enactment by HTLs.

As categories
became linked, analytic memos (Strauss, 1987) fostered the
development of
larger themes. Throughout data analysis, frequent meetings
occurred between
both researchers to discuss the emerging patterns. Eventually,
codetermined
themes were named and are presented in the Findings section.
Limitations of Study
A limitation of this study involved one of the initial foci of the
research—the
tangible synergy between the HTL’s roles as “teacher” and
“leader.” This syn-
ergy was less prevalent than planned, and therefore harder to
document and
analyze. One possible reason for this limitation was that the PI
visited each
HTL on 10 or 11 occasions, as it was not possible to visit all six
HTLs every
day throughout the school year. Although a good deal of field
data were col-
lected during these visits, it is highly plausible that additional
valuable data
were missed during the days when no observational field notes

were taken.
An additional reason for this shortcoming in the research
process is that
teacher-leader synergy existed much less than administrators
and the HTLs
themselves initially expected. Although this limitation made it
more difficult
to examine Research Question 1 and Research Question 3
(enactment and
impact of studio classroom activities), it also allowed for deeper
exploration
of Research Question 2 (barriers to the studio classroom, and
potential sup-
ports needed to facilitate its success).
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 285 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Findings
In this section, we present this study’s findings related to

perception and
implementation of the studio classroom. We first look at
administrators’ hopes
and concerns about implementing studio classrooms, as well as
the mixed
and diluted messages they sent. Next, we contrast these findings
to teachers’
largely positive reactions to the studio classroom concept. We
then look at
barriers that prevented HTLs from fully implementing the studio
classroom,
including HTLs objections to using their own classrooms as
models and fears
of creating collegial dependency. Finally, we look at structural
and cultural
barriers that prevented the studio classroom model from being
used on a
regular basis, which included lack of administrative direction,
scheduling and
funding issues, as well as pervasive fear of and resistance to
“observations.”
* * *
Show Me the Way: Teachers and the Studio Classroom

In contrast to administrators, teachers across the sites were
quite clear
regarding how they felt about studio classroom activities: (a)
they liked hav-
ing approaches modeled for them and (b) they did not like being
visited
themselves.
There are repeated instances in the 2 years of field notes data of
teachers
expressing that “seeing other professionals in action” helped
them to bet-
ter understand both the “why” and “how” of school wide reform
goals. For
example, one school was working on using “powerful teaching
and learning
methods” via a list of indicators. After a “learning walk” to
another teacher’s
classroom with Karen, one visiting teacher commented, “I knew
we did it, but
now I see why . . . it helps to understand the indicators.” It is
important to note,
however, that this was not a studio classroom visit to an HTL’s
classroom but
a guided tour given by Karen.

Similarly, in an early year one-on-one coaching session,
Melissa expressed the
hopeful idea that “we can use each other’s classes as labs.” The
teacher, how-
ever, pushed for Melissa to guest teach in his class—mentioning
twice that it
was the guest teaching in his classroom that he found to be the
most helpful
form of professional development the previous year. In another
example, Sam
was facilitating an after-school professional development
session for teachers
on new interactive math technologies. Here again, the teachers
pressed for
some version of the studio classroom to enhance their learning
of this new
approach, with one commenting, “It just helps to see it done
with a real class.”
Although Sam made a general comment that anyone was
welcome to watch
him teach at any time—a common refrain across the sites—
specific invita-
tions never followed.

The dynamics in these interactions indicates a desire from
teachers to see
new approaches modeled in order to integrate them more deeply
into their
teaching schemata. Yet at the same time, many of these same
teachers avoided
being visited by the HTLs and other teachers. The HTLs,
similarly, preferred to
visit other classrooms rather than being visited—for reasons
explored in the
next section.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 286 5/21/14 3:16 PM
HTL Barriers to the Studio Classroom
HTLs across the sites spoke about Level 1 studio classroom
modeling as
something that could and possibly should occur but only after
certain condi-
tions were met. Primarily, these conditions related to collegial

dispositions
toward the role of the HTL. For example, Melissa explained
why she believed
Level 1 modeling was neither the best approach nor use of
teacher time. She
claimed that it made some teachers too dependent on her,
referencing one
particular colleague who “just wanted her to come back and
[teach his class]
again and again.” Melissa was also concerned about guest
teaching in other
classes with the focus being solely on “instruction” and not
relationships, add-
ing that “those kids don’t know me.” As for having other
teachers visiting her
classroom via the studio model, she said that most teachers
didn’t feel it was
worth the time because
there is a sense that if the [coach] is in the building, and I can
get some
materials, I can just figure it out. This happens even when it has
been
mandated to see others teach and there is really positive
feedback

about it. It’s because there’s also really negative feedback about
time
and timing and logistics. I have seen a few teachers come in
here [to
my class] and see something, but they drop it at the transfer.
They just
want the materials to get it done.
These concerns that studio classroom teaching events would
create depen-
dency among teachers and yield only superficial teacher
learning were com-
mon among the HTLs. They believed, as Melissa expressed, that
although
an observed lesson might provide other teachers with an activity
or teach-
ing idea, it did not lead to any deep change in teacher thinking.
Rob similarly
expressed concern about both the motives behind teachers’
desires for the
studio classroom as well as its impact:
They get in this kind of mode where I need to help them. They
get
stuck, and it’s like: rescue, rescue, rescue . . . they are looking

for help,
but I am not sure my definition of help is their definition. Last
year,
they wanted me to deal with everything, give them a worksheet,
tell
them this is their math program. I want them to start thinking
about
how to teach math.
Here, Rob differentiates between a more prescriptive version of
“help” that
teachers might glean from watching him teach and the
transformation in math
instruction that he sought. He, like most of the HTLs, thought
that at some
point studio classrooms would be more appropriate, adding that
“once we get
other pieces in place . . . books, standards, curriculum . . . then
we can do some
of that other stuff—going into other people’s classrooms.”
Similarly, Melissa
believed that because the teachers had not identified a focused
need, “I don’t
think we’re at that point yet” where teachers would see it being
worth their

time. Across the sites, there was a general sense from the HTLs
that teachers
were not ready for the studio classroom.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 287 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Thus, there existed a clear dissonance between observed
teachers’ expecta-
tions and hopes for studio classroom activities from the HTLs
and what the
HTLs themselves believed was appropriate to advance
professional develop-
ment in their buildings. Although the teachers seemed to be
asking for con-
crete examples of reforms-in-action, the HTLs perceived a lack
of systemic
readiness to facilitate teacher learning through the studio model.
HTLs in their own classroom. One additional HTL impediment
to manifestation

of the studio classroom was evident across the sites—the HTLs’
own teach-
ing. Each of the HTLs was observed teaching in their own
classroom two or
three times. In almost every instance, their lessons were typical
of those you
might see in any K–12 classrooms—filled with high points, low
points, and
occasionally some difficulties engaging students. Sometimes,
they struggled
with exactly the same reform implementation in which they
were seeking to
engage their colleagues.
In one illustrative example, Peggy explained how her district
was rolling out
new initiatives related to differentiated instruction and building
students’
academic vocabulary. At an observed leadership workshop day
for all teacher
leaders and principals, the entire school was discussing the
book The Differ-
entiated School to learn how to better meet the needs of the
district’s increas-
ingly diverse learners. Days later, Peggy was observed teaching

an 8th grade
Social Studies lesson focused on academic vocabulary
connected to “politi-
cal parties” and “planks.” The lesson was designed to include a
role play for
students to think about which party they would choose as they
were offered
more and more items. Through much of the lesson, students did
not listen
to her directions nor did they focus on the task at hand. Clearly
frustrated,
Peggy threatened the students with “going back and just reading
the book”
if they did not cooperate. After the lesson, she ascribed some of
the lessons’
shortcomings to the fact that one of the students in the room had
Asperger’s
syndrome.
The above is not a teacher-bashing anecdote. In fact, the
observational data
have several examples of HTLs directly addressing the
researcher after a
classroom observation to “explain” why a lesson did not go
well—sometimes

attributing it to particular kids, other times to their leadership
positions,
which made it more difficult to plan. What is important to note
here is that
in no case did an HTL see their own classroom—including
struggles with
their own teaching—as fodder for productive coaching
discussions about
the lived curriculum and how to make the larger reform efforts
more viable.
Instead, fear of judgments from visitors—whether the researcher
or another
teacher—led them to explain away rather than explore the
difficulties of
teaching. In the right environment and with the right supports,
the teaching
episode above could have been used as a centerpiece for a
discussion of what
makes teaching academic vocabulary through differentiated
instruction chal-
lenging and how to do it better next time. Instead, it was
quickly brushed
aside—and with some degree of shame.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 288 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Structural Barriers to the Studio Classroom
As indicated earlier, a number of structural issues also impeded
the HTLs
enacting the studio classroom. Lack of direction from
administrators on
expectations related to the focus and frequency of teacher leader
modeling
was one major obstacle. As Melissa commented, there would
need to be a
“clearly identified need” in order to make the “minutes,
expectations, reflec-
tions, and time” of a true studio classroom palpably worth it for
teachers.
However, these larger structures were never set in place. Even
when visiting
other teacher’s classrooms was an administrative expectation,
neither sup-
ports nor consequences were put in place to give the prospect
any teeth.

Additional structural barriers included lack of compatibility of
schedules for
HTLs and the teachers with whom they worked. Karen noted
that “the fewer
classes I teach, the fewer opportunities for people to observe me
teaching.”
One additional structural barrier was funding, and the need to
“cover” teach-
ers’ classes so that they could observe Level 1 modeling.
A final but notable lack of structure became clear in the five
examples of
when a studio classroom event did occur: a lack of protocols to
encourage
learning from the teaching event. In one example, Melissa’s
classroom was
visited by a coach from another school to see how the
“transition model” for
special education students was working. When the visitor was
asked what
she was looking for during the observation, she said, “Nothing
specific.” Dur-
ing the debrief of the lesson, Melissa asked the visiting coach if
she had any

questions, and the conversation meandered around general
classroom and
teaching issues for approximately 15 minutes. When Melissa
pressed for
more specific feedback, the visitor replied, “Nothing to say, it
was great to
see. . . . The kids are fun.”
In another example of lack of structured protocols, Rob modeled
two lessons
in two different teachers’ classrooms over the course of the
year. During each
lesson, Rob provided specific examples of pedagogical
approaches targeted
to the areas in which the teachers wanted to improve and gain
more exper-
tise. Yet in neither lesson was the teacher in a physical or
mental position of
learning. Instead of taking notes, observing, and asking
questions about con-
tent and pedagogy, these teachers coached individual students
on the tasks.
There was no specific protocol for how these teachers were to
get the most
out of Rob’s Level 1 modeling and, for one period, to not teach

but learn about
teaching. In the absence of this structure for observing-to-learn,
they did not
appear to use the time to expand their teaching repertoire. For
the most part,
they watched and worked with particular students, with one
even leaving the
room for several minutes to help a student begin a separate
project discon-
nected from Rob’s studio lesson.
Overall, there was little to no impact on larger school reform
efforts or indi-
vidual teacher learning when the HTLs did manage to enact
some aspect of
the studio classroom through Level 1 modeling. This appeared
to be related to
the fact that there was no process in place to link observations
of HTL teaching
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 289 5/21/14 3:16 PM

to specified improvement goals through targeted description,
analysis, and
reflection by the observer(s).
School-Cultural Barriers to the Studio Classroom
HTLs not only faced structural hindrances but also obstacles
imbedded
within the culture of teaching. For example, across all sites, the
HTLs were
quite explicit that the word “observe” was never to be used in
conjunction
with classroom visitations. Peggy specifically said the word
“observe” was “a
dirty word.” Additionally, according to Sam and Janet, the
evaluative conno-
tations connected with classroom “observations” were reported
to bring up
“union issues” at several of the sites and violated the privacy
that some teach-
ers valued. In some instances, the situation was so severe that
individual BSD
HTLs decided to abandon any attempts to engage in classroom
intervisita-

tions. Janet said she decided she would wait until she was
explicitly asked to
do so by administrators to avoid being the object of a union
grievance, and
Sam explained how he had begun to do most of his coaching
over e-mail.
Sam’s engaging in primarily virtual Level 2 modeling
symbolized a phenom-
enon that occurred across all six HTL participants—a gradual
drift away from
the situated, classroom-based professional development
activities that were
originally envisioned as integral to their roles.
In addition to the valuing of privacy, HTLs also faced teachers’
fear of judgment
that they described as being very much a part of the culture of
teaching—
particularly in these politically charged times when “teacher
quality” is under
a microscope. Rob explained how the phenomenon of teacher
insecurity
affected his attempts to arrange intervisitations:
There’s a lot of insecurity in teaching—to put it out there in

front of
other adults, man, this is tough. I see less problems with the
younger
teachers, most of them are willing. The older teachers, some of
them
are comfortable and don’t care, and some are a little reluctant.
It could
be me—maybe they just don’t know me that well.
Rob would add a few weeks later that he understood why
teachers would
delay responding to requests for intervisitations, as they
perceive no direct
benefit because “the mindset” is just not there. Often, he said,
the “best way in”
was to “just go ahead and [teach their class] himself.” This
served as another
example of how long-held sociocultural practices within the
profession nega-
tively affected the social learning that was ideally supposed to
flow from HTL
positions.
Discussion

Across all sites and participants, there were three consistent and
related bar-
riers to enacting the studio classroom: (a) a covert and
sometimes overt mes-
sage that lessons were not for teachers to learn from but needed
to “work”
for students, (b) a lack of focus on an agreed-on “learning goal”
for teachers
within a district or school, and (c) a lack of trust among
teachers, making them
uncomfortable with classroom visitations. The common thread
among these
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 290 5/21/14 3:16 PM
barriers is a diminished understanding and appreciation for the
(teacher)
learning process, despite extensive research documenting that
learning from
mistakes and missteps is fundamental to transforming beliefs

and practices.
As Jensen (2005) explains, there are “two simple truths about
the brain:
(1) the brain rarely gets it right the first time, and (2) making
mistakes is key
to developing intelligence” (p. 52). Yet the rabid emphasis on
ensuring that
students’ brains were experiencing “best practices” to pass state
exams had
the countereffect of reducing opportunities for teachers to
expand their peda-
gogical intelligence.
The pervasive collective lack of appreciation for learning from
mistakes led
to situations where logistical, social, and cultural barriers
overwhelmed any
studio classroom implementation attempts. This occurred even
though many
in the respective systems praised the abstract concept of studio
lessons to
promote teacher learning. In practice, this led to a passing of
the observation
buck. The HTLs were willing to visit other teachers but much
less willing to

be visited. Teachers wanted to watch the HTLs teach but not to
be observed
themselves. Meanwhile, administrators sent out mixed and
diluted messages
about the extent to which they expected professional learning to
be rooted in
classrooms.
Further complicating any attempts for teachers to learn from
practice in class-
rooms were diffused reform efforts. Each of the districts in this
study was
engaged in multiple, sometimes contradictory, initiatives. In
terms of what
teachers were supposed to learn in a studio classroom,
administrators could
not provide a focus, or provided too many foci. As several of
the HTLs indi-
cated, it was difficult to know what should be “modeled” or
“observed” when
district and school goals were unclear and sometimes
convoluted. To make
teacher learning “concrete” became nearly impossible within
ambiguous sys-
temic goals.

In sum, the structural barriers (e.g., lack of time, money, as
well as protocols
and focus) facilitated the maintenance of school-cultural
barriers (e.g., fear,
distrust, and privacy) long-held within the teaching profession.
Although it
made sense hypothetically that an educator who was both
teaching and lead-
ing teachers would link the two endeavors via some version of
the studio
classroom, the HTLs opened up their classroom doors no more
than their col-
leagues. With little authority to institute the studio classroom,
and a perva-
sive insecurity in both their own teaching and relationships with
colleagues,
the HTLs ultimately reverted back to traditional norms of
teacher privacy
and isolation—ironically, the norms their positions were
initially designed to
break down.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Clearly, the closed-door culture of teaching will not go gently
into that good
night. To counteract this, as this study indicates, a reexamining
of the term
modeling needs to take place. The word “model” typically infers
exhibiting
qualities for replication by the observers. However, what is
needed to promote
teacher learning of new concepts and approaches is a redefining
of teacher
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 291 5/21/14 3:16 PM
modeling as exhibiting qualities that encourage reflection on
teaching rather
than replication of teaching. This would require an
acknowledgment that any
lesson is to some degree an experiment; and that even a “best
practice” will
require much fine-tuning when manifested with particular

students on a par-
ticular day in a particular classroom (see Margolis, 2010).
Similarly, for teacher leaders, the message needs to be sent that
leadership is
in the learning, not in the perfection. As Anderson and Herr
(2011) insightfully
explain, the importing of “best” or “evidenced-based” practices
to classrooms
is valuable only to the exporters who profit from these materials
(e.g., pub-
lishing and testing companies) and disregards decades of
scholarship on the
importance of authentic teacher inquiry (see Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2009).
HTLs and other teacher leaders may be more willing to tackle
structural and
cultural obstacles to the studio classroom if there is a clear
systemic message
that the “model” is the one who learns the most from their
teaching. In disman-
tling the search for the holy grail of the “perfect lesson,” a new
vision of leader-
ship can emerge where the teacher leader is the best teacher
learner—the one

who revises and improves their own teaching the most, as well
as the one who
provides the most appropriate feedback to others so they can
learn from mis-
steps. To aid in creating these types of environments,
administrators would
need to model the process of learning from mistakes themselves,
making pub-
lic their own thinking as they navigate through complex
educational dilemmas.
To assist in this redefining of school leadership to improve
teacher learning, we
can draw from emergent theories on how to improve K–12
student learning. One
of the strategies suggested by several authors (see Jensen, 2005;
Schoenbach,
Greenleaf, Cziko, & Hurwitz, 1999) is to reward awareness of
struggles—the
more honest and thorough, the better. Extending this theory to
teacher profes-
sional development around the implementation of curricular and
pedagogi-
cal reforms would be an important and essential first step in re-
acculturating

teaching. It would mean using data to improve rather prove
(Charalambous
& Silver, 2008; Nelson, Slavit, & Deuel, 2012), drawing from
classroom obser-
vations to learn rather than evaluate, and rewarding teachers for
reflection
rather than perfection. Specific strategies might include (a)
designating tar-
geted rewards for teachers who thoughtfully identify areas of
struggle during
specific lesson observations as well as annual reviews, (b)
developing addi-
tional rewards structures for teachers who demonstrate action
(e.g., research
and professional development leading to revised lessons and
curricula) as a
result of thoughtful reflection on areas needing improving, and
(c) associating
career ladder opportunities (e.g., teacher leader-coaching
positions) with the
desired qualifications of demonstrating the following: a record
of connecting
reflection on teaching to the improvement of teaching and
learning, an open-
ness to classroom intervisitations and Level 1 modeling, and a

capacity to con-
nect individual teaching enhancements to larger school
improvement goals.
Some of the new national standards for preservice teachers to
achieve cer-
tification (see Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium,
2011) do call
on teacher candidates to speak to where they would make
adjustments
based on documented learning events with students. The
National Board for
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 292 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Professional Teaching Standards (2011) similarly asks in-
service candidates
to speak to needed improvements in order to articulate their
excellence. Yet
in both of these high-profile teacher portfolios, the focus on

improvement is
subsidiary to an emphasis on proving impact on student
learning. Moreover,
these performance-based efforts are often overrun by larger
forces in a con-
temporary political climate that places teaching under a
microscope for judg-
ment based primarily on student test scores.
Ultimately, this study neither refutes nor confirms prior
research on the
importance of teachers and teacher leaders owning curricular
reforms
through opportunities for structured practice and reflection. It
does, however,
illuminate the complicated web of factors that hinder
classroom-centered
professional development and provides some helpful guideposts
for those
who want to bring the studio classroom to life. To assist in
making Level 1
modeling more widely accepted, research on teaching will need
to more
strongly make the case that documenting and analyzing mistakes
(as well as

successes) more strongly correlates with teacher and student
learning than
the importation and transmitting of “best practices.” In so
doing, future stud-
ies might then seize more opportunities to document the impact
of Level 1
modeling and the studio classroom on professional development
and larger
school reform efforts. This evidence might, at last, help create
the social con-
ditions within which teacher leaders can successfully work with
colleagues
to better connect what is ideally “said” in schools with the
realities of what is
“done” in classrooms.
References
Anderson, G., & Herr, K. (2011). Scaling up “evidenced-based”
practices for teachers is a profit-
able but discredited paradigm. Educational Research, 40, 287–
289.
Charalambous, C., & Silver, E. (2008, January). Shifting from
proving to improving: Using assess-

ment as an integral part of instruction. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Tulsa, OK.
City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009).
Instructional rounds in education: A network
approach to improving teaching and learning. Boston, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Coburn, C., & Russell, J. (2008). District policy and teachers’
social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance:
Practitioner research for the next gen-
eration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conley, S., Fauske, J., & Pounder, D. (2004). Teacher work
group effectiveness. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40, 663–703.
Domitrovich, C., Gest, S., Sukhdeep, G., Bierman, K., Welsh,
J., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering
high-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and
professional development

support: The Head Start REDI Program. American Educational
Research Journal, 46,
567–597.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using
sociocultural theory to link
professional learning to organizational support. American
Journal of Education, 114,
541–581.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 293 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Goldstein, J. (2004). Making sense of distributed leadership:
The case of peer assistance and
review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 173–
197.

Intrator, S., & Kunzman, R. (2009). Grounded: Practicing what
we preach. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60, 512–519.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kardos, M., Johnson, S., Heather, G., Kaufmann, D., & Liu, E.
(2001). Counting on colleagues:
New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their
schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37, 250–290.
Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy
of teacher education:
Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher
learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 98–106.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, I. (2011). Teachers as presenters at continuing professional
development seminars in the
English-as-a-foreign-language context: I find it more
convincing. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 36, 30–42.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research
contribute to instructional
improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational
Researcher, 35, 3–14.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’
professional community in restructuring
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–789.
Margolis, J. (2010, June 22). Why teacher quality is a local
issue (and why race to the top is a
misguided flop). Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/

content.asp?contentid=16023
Margolis, J. (2012). Hybrid teacher leaders and the new
professional development ecology.
Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 291–315.
Margolis, J., & Huggins, K. (2012). Distributed, but undefined:
New teacher leader roles to
change schools. Journal of School Leadership 22(5), 95–98.
Mayrowetz., D., Murphy, J., Louis, K., & Smylie, M. (2007).
Distributed leadership as work
redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership
and Policy in Schools,
6(1), 69–101.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morris, A., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional
products: An alternative
approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1),
5–14.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2011).
Retrieved from http://www
.nbpts.org
Nelson, T., Slavit, D., & Deuel, A. (2012). Two dimensions of
an inquiry stance toward student
learning data. Teachers College Record, 114(8). Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord
.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16532
Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of
professional development and coach-
ing on early language and literacy instructional practices.
American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 532–566.
Reeves, D. (2009). Model teachers. Educational Leadership,
66(5), 85–86.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American
Educational
Research Association.

bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 294 5/21/14 3:16 PM
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16023
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16023
http://www.nbpts.org
http://www.nbpts.org
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16532
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16532
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999).
Reading for understanding: A
guide to improving reading in middle and high school
classrooms. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a
distributed perspective to the school
principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1),
103–125.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium. (2011). TPAC
assessment: Elementary literacy.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the
acquisition of professional knowledge:
An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of
Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
Zwart, R., Wubbles, T., Bergen, R., & Bolhius, S. (2009). What
characteristics of a reciprocal
peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by
teachers and their
students? Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 243–257.
Source: Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2012). The fundamental
dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated professional development:
Do as
I (kind of ) say, not as I (sort of ) do. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859–882. SAGE, Inc. © 2012,
University Council

for Educational Administration.
Summary
The article by Margolis and Doring represents research at the
school and district level focused
on perceptions of adults who are trying to lead change in
education. Their work also raises
important issues of why such change at the practice level among
teachers is difficult to achieve.
The studio classroom structure offers teachers an opportunity to
observe HTLs, which is a poten-
tially viable means to observe innovative and presumably more
effective ways to teach. However,
such modeling with real students in classrooms also
incorporates the possibility that lessons will
not be ideal and that the practice will not be perfect.
Margolis and Doring suggest that these episodes are valuable if
teachers, administrators, and
HTLs can view reflection on practice as equally beneficial as
viewing highly successful lessons.
The authors note that in these four districts, there were no
protocols for the application of les-
sons learned from model classrooms, nor were there clear
learning goals for teachers. In the end,

teachers who participated did not exhibit trust in the process.
They explain, “Clearly, the closed-
door culture will not go gently into that good night.”
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Margolis and Doring assert that new approaches to leading
teachers toward instructional
change involve more reflection on teaching rather than
replication of teaching. They also
described the lack of protocols for such a reflective practice in
the teacher leadership
approach that was the focus for their research. Such reflection
should not be evaluative but
should rather reward documentation coupled with reflection.
Design the steps in a protocol
for conversation after a model lesson taught by an HTL and
observed by a teacher peer.
Then design the follow-up steps after a parallel lesson taught by
the teacher mentee and
observed by the HTL.
2. The researchers write, “Clearly, the closed-door culture of
teaching will not go gently into
that good night.” Discuss that comment and weigh its truth in

your experience. Then, pro-
pose two or three innovations that may help schools overcome
this challenge.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 295 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Section 6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New
Paradigm
3. The closed-door culture of teaching has new meaning in the
context of online courses. Can
or does a studio classroom work in online teaching among
teacher leaders and peer teach-
ers? If so, how?
4. This research study underscores the importance of context
and social norms that affect
leadership and changes in roles in schools. Discuss how issues
such as poor standardized
test performance, percentage of students qualified for free and
reduced lunch, and teacher-
quality indicators affect the success of leaders, specifically
teachers leaders, in schools.

5. The studio classroom approach is intended to influence
change—one classroom and one
teacher at a time. It does not seem to be geared toward large-
scale reform of school, pro-
grams, or districts. If you were part of a reform initiative at
those larger levels, would you
incorporate studio classrooms? If so, how would you ensure that
classroom-based work had
an impact for the larger program or school? If not, why not?
6.3 Sustainable Leadership and Social Justice: A New
Paradigm, by Andy Hargreaves
Introduction
Andy Hargreaves is the Thomas More Brennan Chair in
Education at Boston College’s Lynch
School of Education. He has written or edited more than 25
books. He wrote the following article
for the journal Independent School whose target audience is
independent school administra-
tors and teachers.
This article offers an optimistic account of educational
leadership today. Hargreaves notes that

leadership is more “evolved” and emphasizes the role of
collaboration in leading schools, which
accounts for more positive changes. Hargreaves also credits the
inclusion of more women in
leadership roles with bringing new insights. Because women
typically come from the field of
curriculum and instruction, he writes, they bring teaching and
learning priorities to leadership.
Hargreaves asserts that a new vision of leadership must be
sustainable if the culture of schools is
to improve. Sustainable leadership refers to how leaders and
their initiatives affect others; sus-
tainable leadership is about social justice. He offers seven
principles for sustainable leadership
that include attention to the creation and preservation of
sustained learning, success over time,
sustaining people around the leader in a school, and sustaining
the self of the leader. Hargreaves
claims that the principles of sustainable leadership can be
applied in all educational settings.
Excerpt
The following is an excerpt from Hargreaves, A. (2005).
Sustainable leadership and social jus-

tice: A new paradigm. Independent School, 64(2), 16–24.
I grew up in a working class community in the rigid social class
system in
England in the mid-20th century. In such a setting, you quickly
learn that, in
your community’s experience, leaders are more often part of the
problem
than they are part of the solution. In World War I, it was
political leadership
that sent my grandfather, along with half of my town, to the
slaughterhouse of
the Somme, only to find, on his return half deaf and with one
lung, that he was
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 296 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Paradigm
barred from collecting his disability pension because he could
not travel the
five miles back and forth each day to collect it.

Business leadership fired my mother from her first factory job,
when she had
asked to be reassigned from her task—using pliers to twist the
coils of springs
on the ends of looms—because her bleeding palms could no
longer hold the
pliers. And when she went to search for a new job, her boss
actually informed
the Labor Exchange ahead of time that she’d been fired for
insubordination.
She prayed every night that the factory would burn down and,
although this
was probably a questionable use of prayer, one month later, it
did.
Educational leadership when I was growing up was not much
better. It was
the kind of leadership that Joseph and Jo Blase, in their book,
Breaking the
Silence, characterized as being practiced by authoritarian, even
wounding,
principals. It was rational, linear, hierarchical, secretive, and
controlling. It
was leadership too often lacking in mission, and almost always

leadership
bereft of passion. This was a world of “power over” rather than
“power with,”
of transactional rather than transformational leadership.
It’s not surprising, then, that I was part of a generation that
questioned
authority on all levels—and it was only later, as members of our
generation
came into leadership positions ourselves, that we began to think
about ways
to truly improve things. Still, it has been a slow evolution. In
the early years,
we certainly had a sense of social mission. We cared about
social justice, about
civil rights, women’s liberation, the end of nuclear
proliferation. But we often
pursued this with irreverence and, sometimes, even
irresponsibility.
While I can’t speak to political and business leadership today,
I’m happy to see
that, when it comes to educational leadership, things have
changed over the
past 30 years, and are continuing to change for the better.

For one, there are more women leading schools today. In many
cases, women
brought to their work a more explicitly caring and collaborative
ethic. They
also brought a different kind of educational background and
orientation.
Unlike many of their male predecessors, the new women leaders
have moved
increasingly from curriculum and instructional backgrounds.
Instructional
leadership was not something they had to learn afresh, but
something that
was already in their bones, waiting to be fleshed out more fully
when they
moved into administration. This generation of women has
brought caring and
learning to the forefront of the leadership world.
We’ve also seen the rise of collaboration in schools. In the past,
the domi-
nant feature of this community was a culture of individualism,
where teach-
ers worked largely alone, in isolation, separate from their
colleagues. They

didn’t learn from their colleagues; they did not acquire
expertise about how
to improve; and they did not get moral support when they were
going through
the early, difficult stages of change. But we learned in the late
20th century
that when teachers worked in more collaborative cultures—what
are now
called professional learning communities—they had the support
of their col-
leagues, they learned from one another. This has not only made
teaching a
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 297 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Paradigm
more inspiring job, it has also made teachers more effective in
terms of the
impact they have on their students.
Subsequent research has shown that, if the culture of teaching

was one of the
crucial things that affected the quality of student learning, one
of the most
significant impacts on the culture of teaching was the character
of leadership,
and particularly of principalship (or headship) within the
school.
What we are seeing now is the importance of a higher, more
evolved vision of
leadership—what we call sustainable leadership. This is not the
leadership of
heroes, the leadership of charismatic individuals, the leadership
that comes
and goes, that rises and falls. It is leadership that spreads across
people over
long periods of time, and spreads from one school, one place, to
another, so
it benefits many schools and many children, not just a few
schools that are
bright exceptions in odd or eccentric places.
Most people who write about sustainability in education write
about it in a
somewhat trivialized way. They equate sustainability with

maintainability,
with the capacity to keep things going. I want to attune it more
to the ecologi-
cal origins of the concept, so that we see sustainability as a
spatial as well as
a time-based issue.
As Dean Fink, an associate of the International Centre for
Educational Change
at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and I have
defined it, sustain-
able leadership means not simply whether something can last,
but how par-
ticular initiatives can be developed without compromising the
development
of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future.
Sustainable
leadership means how your leadership affects other people
around you. Sus-
tainable leadership is therefore fundamentally not just about
keeping things
going, but also about social justice, about your impact on other
people, whom
your actions affect over time.

We have developed seven principles of sustainable leadership
that speak to us
from the environmental as well as responsible corporate
development litera-
ture. While they are designed with public school leadership in
mind, it’s clear
they have applicability to all schools, public and private.
Sustainable Leadership Creates and Preserves Sustained
Learning
Sustainable leadership is first and foremost about leadership for
learning in
the deepest sense. It’s leadership that fully understands the
nature of student
learning, that engages directly with learning and teaching in
classrooms, and
that promotes learning among other adults to find the best ways
to help the
learning of students. Sustainable leadership, in this sense,
captures, develops,
and retains deep pools of leaders of learning.
Sustainable Leadership Secures Enduring Success Over Time

Sustainable improvements continue year upon year, from one
year to the next.
They are not fleeting changes that depend on exemplary leaders’
efforts and
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 298 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Paradigm
that disappear when the leaders have gone. Sustainable
leadership spreads
beyond individuals in chains of influence that connect the
actions of leaders to
the ones who went before and the ones who will take up their
legacy. Sustain-
able leadership makes leadership succession central to the
process of con-
tinuous improvement.
Quick-fix changes to turn around schools in trouble are the
antithesis of sus-
tainable leadership. They often exhaust the teachers or the

principal, so the
improvement efforts can’t be sustained over time. The success
of principals
in such schools may lead to their promotions or their
movements to other
schools that need them, resulting in regression among the
teachers who feel
abandoned by their leader or relieved when the pressure is off.
Sustainable improvement, therefore, has to be measured over
many years.
For individual principals themselves, leadership succession
challenges them
to think about who they succeeded, what were their
achievements, what busi-
ness they left unfinished, where they fell short. It is a challenge
of deciding
what to continue, what to change, of recognizing the legacies
that have to be
honored and the work that has yet to be done.
Leadership succession challenges individual leaders to consider
how the
improvements they guided, or will initiate, will live on after
their promotion

and retirement. There is a dark corner of the soul in most
leaders that secretly
wants their own brilliance never to be surpassed, that hopes
their successors
will be a little less excellent, a little less loved, a little less
brilliant than them-
selves. The Emperor Caligula killed half his children. Saturn ate
his offspring.
Governments have been known to spend all the surplus to spoil
things for the
next government that comes in. These are the most pathological
cases of poor
leadership succession.
Moral leadership doesn’t deny the feelings of wanting to be
better than any
successor. Instead, it rises above these feelings for the good of
others.
Etienne Wenger, in Communities of Practice, talks about two
kinds of fast-
paced knowledge—inbound knowledge and outbound
knowledge—that
leaders possess at times of succession. Wenger says that
individual leaders

and the people who appoint them are obsessed with inbound
knowledge, the
knowledge that you need to fix something, change it, turn it
around, place
your stamp on it. Almost no one pays any attention to outbound
knowledge,
the knowledge you need to keep something going, improve on
it, build on
what’s gone before, leave a legacy when you’re done.
Independent schools have more opportunity than most to groom
their suc-
cessors. Some schools even keep this within the family, though
it’s important
to ensure that the perpetuation of longstanding traditions and
values doesn’t
eclipse getting hold of the best expertise. In independent
schools, it would
make a lot of sense for all school improvement plans to
incorporate clear suc-
cession plans.
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 299 5/21/14 3:16 PM

Paradigm
Sustainable Leadership Must Depend Not Just on Grooming
Individual Successors, but Also on Sustaining People Around
the Leader
Leadership succession, in this sense, is about distributed
leadership, about
how you spread leadership to other people. Outstanding
leadership isn’t just
dependent on individuals. In a complex, fast-paced world,
leadership cannot
rest on the shoulders of the few.
No one leader, no one institution, no one nation can
micromanage or control
everything it believes to be in its power without help from other
people around
it. The burden is too great. In Witi Ihimaera’s magnificent
novel, Whale Rider,
about an adolescent Maori girl who becomes the unexpected
daughter—
rather than the anticipated, chosen son—who will lead her

people out of the
darkness, she gathers her people together to turn beached
whales back into
the ocean, challenging her patriarchal elders to understand that
lone leaders
cannot do it all by themselves.
In highly complex, knowledge-based organizations, we need
everyone’s intel-
ligence to help the school to flex, respond, regroup, and retool
in the face of
unpredictable and sometimes overwhelming demands. If we lock
intelligence
up in the individual leader, this creates inflexibility and
increases the likeli-
hood of mistakes and errors. But when we draw on what Brown
and Lauder
call “collective intelligence” that’s infinite rather than fixed,
multiple rather
than singular, and belongs to everyone not just a few, then the
capacity for
learning and improvement is magnified many times over.
This is the power of distributed leadership. Distributed
leadership, unlike

delegated leadership, creates an environment where other people
have the
power, initiative, motivation, and capacity to initiate acts of
leadership them-
selves. It is about empowering to teachers, students, parents,
and all other
groups connected with the school so that improvement is a
genuinely-shared
responsibility.
Sustainable Leadership Is Thrifty Without Being Cheap
There is no point investing large amounts of resources in a pilot
program and
then seeing the initiative disappear when the pilot-project
resources have
gone. There is no point developing No Child Left Behind
legislation according
to one budget, and then implementing it on a seriously reduced
budget over
time. Sustainable expenditure is exemplified in spending on
skill development
that lasts once the resources disappear. Sustainable expenditure
is also seen
in buying people time to create a collaborative culture that will

continue even
when the amount of time decreases, once the resources have
gone. In short,
sustainable leadership develops improvements that can be
achieved within
existing or achievable resources.
Independent schools, generally speaking, have greater resources
than pub-
lic schools. But the principle still applies. Overextending a
budget to achieve
bur81496_06_c06_271-326.indd 300 5/21/14 3:16 PM
Paradigm
short-term desires can hurt a school in the long-run. With
independent schools,
there is also the concern of driving up the price of an
independent school edu-
cation so that it excludes the middle class. If the goal of true
diversity—class

as well as race—matters to a school, sustainable leadership
requires the sort
of fiscal controls that allow this to happen.
Sustainable Leadership Is About Systems Thinking
and Social Justice
In a study of eight schools I have been conducting with a group
of colleagues,
we have seen how schools are affected by the schools around
them. When a
charismatic leader left one school and took his best staff with
him, not only
did the leader go, but key teacher leaders went with him.
A second example from our research concerns three schools in a
northern
Rust Belt city that are all connected to each other. One of them
is a magnet
school, created in the I980s to stop white and bright flight out
to the suburbs.
This magnet school has done very well. The school next door,
though, which
used to be the jewel of the district, now calls itself the special
education mag-

net, because all its best students have been creamed off to the
magnet school.
Many students from a poor school on the other side of town
have been trans-
ferred to this second school. The school is no longer attached to
its commu-
nity because it now has to take poor students from many
different areas. What
occurs in the magnet school or charter school affects the other
schools around
it. You cannot pursue improvement in one school without
thinking about the
implications, in terms of social justice, for the other schools
around it. This is
a systems-thinking question, and also a moral question that all
leaders have
to ask about their practice.
The applicability to independent schools is different—but the
principle is the
same. Schools need to see themselves in light of the greater
good—indeed, the
broader public purpose of precollegiate education. For
independent schools,
it’s looking at the ways they connect with and serve the culture

2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx

2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx

Similar to 2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx (20)

More from tamicawaysmith

More from tamicawaysmith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2716Leading Change in Education. Andersen RossBlen.docx