This paper examines the conditions that support or hinder teacher collaboration in K–12 schools, drawing on a qualitative study by Leonard and Leonard (2003) and a practical case study of Jacob Hiatt Magnet School. The Leonard and Leonard study surveyed 56 teachers across a school district, finding that 73.1% viewed collaborative teaching efforts as largely inadequate, with time constraints and negative colleague attitudes as dominant barriers. The paper then connects these findings to institutional supports — including clear administrative expectations, scheduling accommodations, and professional development — and describes how Hiatt Magnet School has implemented weekly collaborative planning, classroom rounds, and grade-level assessment meetings to sustain a genuine collaborative culture.
Leonard and Leonard (2003) explored the perceptions of teachers across one school district regarding attributes of their teaching context that inhibit or promote the achievement of collaborative teaching. The authors argue that a negative school environment is unlikely to support implementation of teacher collaboration sufficiently robust to positively impact student outcomes.
In a follow-up to a previous district-wide survey, the researchers surveyed 56 of the original 238 respondents regarding the nature and extent of collaboration in their schools. The respondents were from all school levels and had been teaching between 3 and 34 years. The qualitative survey contained open-ended questions inviting teachers to reflect on the collaborative aspects of their practice at their schools and in the district. In particular, respondents were asked about the expectations of their educational institution and of their administrators. They were also asked about available supports for and consistent constraints on the implementation of teacher collaboration. A specific definition of professional collaboration was provided to respondents to ensure construct validity.
The qualitative data were coded based on emerging themes and sub-themes. Coding was done independently and then reviewed collectively for agreement, resulting in high inter-rater reliability. Two main themes emerged from the data about the nature and extent of professional collaboration in schools, at the district level, and beyond. While many respondents were able to point to supports for collaborative practices, 73.1% reported that collaborative teaching efforts were largely inadequate. The tension between decreasing available time and increasing work demands, combined with the negative mindsets of colleagues regarding collaborative teaching practices, dominated the responses.
Fullan and Miles (1992, p. 748) suggest that "collaborative time for teachers to undertake and then sustain school improvement may be more important than equipment or facilities or even staff development." Leonard and Leonard (2003) argue that school leadership is a primary dependent variable in successful collaborative teaching efforts. Their research is supported by various collaborative teaching initiatives currently being implemented in schools. A strong collaborative teaching program can be developed and sustained in schools, but supports customized to the school environment must be put in place and maintained. Both building-level and district-level administrators must believe that integration leads to improved student outcomes and more satisfying professional careers.
One school district has established a collaborative program to develop information literacy skills. The district maintains that the following attitudinal and environmental supports must be established:
"Weekly planning, rounds, and assessment meetings at Hiatt"
"Raywid's approaches to finding collaborative time"
The researchers concluded that the success of collaborative teaching at school sites was closely linked to principals who championed collaborative teaching. Further, they argue that policymakers and district-level administrators must present unequivocal expectations to school principals if traditional leadership styles are to be prevented from eroding opportunities for professional growth and perpetuating student mediocrity. Both researchers are grounded in educational practice as former teachers and administrators, and are professors of curriculum, instruction, and leadership. This qualitative study adds meaningfully to the literature and was an empirically effective extension of previous research.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.