A Decade of Teacher Leadership: From Theory to Practice

While there are no silver bullets for addressing improved student learning, an emerging body of research is suggesting that building a collaborative school culture focused on student achievement is a critical area for attention and development (Elmore, 1995; Louis, 1996; Marzano, 2002). The concepts explicated in the research are appealing in their simplicity. It is good common sense that when adults shift from working in isolation to working collaboratively, there will be greater systemic impact. When efforts are focused rather than scattered and diffused, improved results are predictable. Yet implementation of such focused, collegial cultures is complex and elusive. To bring the theoretical concepts to reality in a teacher's daily routine and practice requires deliberate, purposeful structures and processes. Douglas County School District has developed and sustained the Building Resource Teacher (BRT) program for 12 years, providing a stable, ongoing structure to support teachers and to build productive school cultures (Hayes, Grippe and Hall, 1999). The BRT provides a unique and viable model for effective use of resources to impact student achievement and school culture

The BRT program was designed to support individual needs of teachers while simultaneously addressing system needs. Each building has one teacher assigned full time who works as part of the leadership team of the school. The BRT is not an administrator, yet as a teacher does not have direct responsibilities for students. The role of the BRT is to support the professional staff and provide job-embedded staff development related to school and system initiatives.

Costa and Garmston (Costa and Garmston, 2002) describe four support functions for teachers: coaching, collaborating, consulting and evaluating. The work of a BRT is grounded in three of the four functions. While coaching is a focus of the BRTs 'work, collaborating and consulting are also important aspects of the work. Evaluation is not a role for this position and is strictly located in the principal's purview. Facilitation is another teacher leadership function that the BRT often takes.

The BRT is trained in the Cognitive Coaching^SM process to support the teacher in planning, reflecting and problem-resolving. The cognitive coach is non-directive, using data and reflective questions to support and develop the teacher's cognition related to the learning processes of students. Advice and judgments are withheld. The BRT may serve as a coach to an individual teacher or may coach a group. The group coaching can involve such things as working with student data, planning common curriculum implementation, or problem-resolving related to student achievement gaps.

The BRT collaborates with individuals and teams. Collaboration differs from Cognitive Coaching^SM in that it is shared work around common goals. The collaboration may include planning, brainstorming, analyzing, and even advocacy.

As a consultant, the BRT brings expertise to any given situation. At times the BRT serves as a trainer or as model for an instructional strategy. Consulting differs from coaching in that this function includes providing rationale and giving advice. On a given day, the BRT makes choices about when to coach, when to collaborate and when to consult. The decision-making process is complex and requires thoughtful differentiation based on the needs of the teacher or group being served.

A fourth teacher leadership function often assumed by the BRT is as a facilitator. The BRT position provides a neutral person in the school available to serve all groups in the school. The BRT commonly facilitates the school's site council. S/he may facilitate team and grade level meetings.

All of these functions—coaching, collaborating, consulting, and facilitating—provide a scaffold for organizational collaboration around professional issues. The BRT serves as a model of and catalyst for developing professional community. Because there is no formal authority in this role, unlike the principal or assistant principal, the BRT's influence is felt through quality coaching, collaborating, consulting, and facilitating. The BRT is viewed as a supportive colleague dedicated to the primary goal of improving student learning.

Developing the Developer

BRTs are selected through a rigorous screening process to become part of an applicant pool from which candidates may apply for positions that become available. 65%– 80% of the applicants are admitted to the pool, which is open once per calendar year. The screening process requires an application including a letter of interest, three letters of recommendation specific to the role, and a current resume. A committee comprised of a BRT from each level, principal, assistant principal, and the assistant director of Staff and Organizational Development conducts the interviews. A professional article is sent to applicants prior to their interview for written analysis. In addition, each applicant is asked to watch a video of a teaching session, elementary or secondary, and respond to it as if they were going to begin coaching the teacher. The committee evaluates the various components, checks references, notifies applicants, and gives specific feedback.

Once selected for the BRT pool, candidates must acquire training that will enhance their work in the four core areas: coaching, collaborating, consulting and facilitating. Training in Cognitive Coaching^SM, A Framework for Teaching(r) (Charlotte Danielson, 1996), and Pathwise(r) Induction training (Educational Testing Service, 2001), is required while facilitation, differentiation of instruction and assessment are strongly suggested. This "developing the developer," is key in that BRTs are looked upon as learners and models for ongoing professional development. Training opportunities, coordination and support of the BRT program are coordinated and/or provided through the Office of Staff and Organizational Development. Once a BRT obtains a position, s/he is supervised and evaluated by the school administrator. BRTs meet monthly as a K-12 group to network and participate in ongoing professional learning. First and second year BRTs meet an additional two hours a month to provide specialized support and induction into the program. They maintain a regular teaching contract and are paid an additional small stipend, which is meant to acknowledge their leadership and extra responsibility.

BRTs as Key Leaders at the School Site

What ultimately defines the day-to-day activities of the BRT is teachers' individual and collective needs. A variety of factors impact how the BRTs time is spent causing the role to look slightly different from school to school. These include such things as the proportion of teachers new to the profession or building, the number and kind of implementations happening, the training needs of staff, expectations for work ethic, the understanding by administrators of the BRT role itself.

The BRT role is a dynamic one and changes occur as a result of federal, state and district mandates. The standards movement, coupled with increased teacher accountability has heightened the significance of the BRT. Without the in-house support of the BRT, the majority of administrators would say these initiatives would have been slower to implement and student achievement gains would have occurred at a slower rate.

The internal structures of a high school exert tremendous influence on the development of the BRT role. Structures such as departments headed by department chairpersons, strong focus on content areas, planning periods scattered throughout the day, after-school responsibilities such as coaching and, sometimes, the physical layout of the building itself tend to act as a cumulative brake on the development of cultures which foster ongoing professional dialogue and collaborative interaction. At the elementary level, year-round school calendars that mean one fourth of the staff is not present at any one given time, can tend to derail these interactions as well.

The BRT role counters this by facilitating communication between and among groups and by maintaining a macrocentric (from the balcony) (Garmston and Wellman, 1999) viewpoint of the school as a system. This counter-effect takes place through the four support functions of coaching, collaborating, facilitating and consulting. The BRT coaches individuals and groups, novice and veteran alike, in an effort to encourage growth in instructional skill and collaborative effort. Collaboration is seen as a learned behavior supported by skills and tools that can be consciously taught, so the BRT becomes an on-site staff developer in the content areas of professional collaboration. Facilitation provides support for purposeful processes such as site-based decision-making, consensus building and systemic implementation of innovations. The BRT also acts as liaison among the building, feeder schools and district. Each part of the role, however, has a foundational intent: to foster coherence and articulation of the focus on student achievement.

The positive impact of the BRT cannot be forced into an artificial time frame. The role develops over time, as does the skill of the person in the role. An understanding that growth takes time is critical. Ongoing quality training to meet individual needs not only provides growth opportunities for the BRT but also is essential for this demanding role. The dimensions of the support require constant "sharpening of the saw."

Parallel to growth in skill is growth of trust between BRT and staff. While rapport can take place moment-to-moment, repeated interactions with teachers in varied contexts are required to demonstrate the intent to support individuals and facilitate growth. Trust between staff and BRT can be developed and maintained only with utmost confidentiality as issues surface and become resolved. In short, it takes as long as it takes for people to trust authentically in the skills, services and intentions of the BRT.

Impact

The impact on professional cultures, teacher retention, job-embedded staff development and implementation of mandates and innovations has been profound. It is reflected in the strong value that school leaders place on the position and the evidence that the district collects anecdotally around teacher retention and job satisfaction. The BRT program is also seen as a positive recruitment incentive in a competitive job market. Douglas County hires up to 500 new teachers annually who are thrilled and often relieved to find someone available to them from the day they sign their contracts to support them in a variety of ways. Federal and state mandates can present implementation challenges, which are eased by having a site staff developer who can anticipate and respond to the needs of the staff in terms of readiness, planning, training, implementation and maintenance (Wood, Killian, McQuarrie and Thompson 1993).

Finally, although the impact on student achievement is indirect, Douglas County's high performance and teacher quality must in part be attributed to the strong culture of improvement and learning that is cultivated by the BRT. District scores have consistently improved and have been well above the state average. Given the large number of new teachers, the support BRTs offer in regard to curriculum, assessment and instruction must be acknowledged as having an influence on continued high achievement.

What We've Learned

The support of an administrator who both understands and appreciates the BRT is critical. Alignment of philosophies is imperative for sustained growth in both staff and students. Strong leadership in a building with a clear mission is fertile ground for the best possible success. The integrity of the role continues as long as the responsibilities of the BRT are clear and maintained by all stakeholders.

From the viewpoint of the BRT, the job can feel a bit lonely. Any perception that the BRT aligns with a particular department or group undermines effectiveness and trust. Two issues arise from this reality: Physical placement of the BRT office is important. Distance from administrative and department offices is a powerful message that the role is unique; easy access from a natural traffic pattern encourages informal interaction. The office ideally offers privacy and a feeling of psychological security. Secondly, the isolation of the role makes it doubly important that BRTs have formal structures to connect with other BRTs and professional colleagues.

Because of the consultant role, BRTs are strongly viewed as the information highway between district and schools. This highway may become quite congested as a myriad of communication items pour down from central office. It requires careful monitoring by the Staff Development Office to protect the BRT from the responsibility of knowing everything about each district department or even for being responsible to carry the information.

At its best, the BRT role can provide the school with the gifts of skilled coaching, collaborative interaction and effective consulting and facilitation—all bridges from working in isolation to collaborative relationships.

References

Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: a foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Danielson, C. (1996) Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Elmore, R. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational researcher. 24(9), 23-26.

Educational Testing Services (2001). Pathwise®. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Services.

Garmston, R. & Wellman, B. (1999). Adaptive Schools: Developing and Facilitating Collaborative Groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Hayes, C., Grippe, P., & Hall, G.E. Firmly Planted. Journal of Staff Development. 20(4), 17-21.

Louis, K.S. Marks, H.M. & Kruse. (1996) Teachers professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal , 33(4), 757-798.

Marzano, R. (2002). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.

Wood, F., Killian, J., McQuarrie, F., & Thompson, S. (1993). How to organize a school-based staff development program. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.