Teacher Leaders and Principals: Building Effective Relationships

Introduction and Rationale

America's teachers face an educational system that is increasingly complex. They must navigate between the needs of students and the demands of administrators. In most instances, the principal represents the average teacher's first point of contact with the outside world of school boards and bureaucratic regulation. There are federally mandated goals and tests, state benchmarks and funding requirements, and parental and media activists. Principals must respond to, or enforce, the demands of all these groups. Teachers must either find a way to comply or defend their choice to follow an alternative path. The opinions of lone teachers, or groups of teachers, count for little when stacked up against the weight of government and community.

Teacher leaders must emerge who can speak for all of the teachers in their schools. These teacher leaders can be the voice of the majority; they can act as liaisons between the rank-and-file educator and the school principal. Ways must be found to develop the capabilities of teacher leaders so they can better articulate the realities of the classroom. The greater the input of these teacher leaders, the greater the probability that America's students will come out the winners in the battle between their own needs and the demands of a frequently distant and impersonal "system." The purpose of this research, therefore, is to further understand the relationships between teacher leaders and their principals and how these dynamics can be developed.

Developing positive and constructive relationships between teacher leaders and their school principals involves careful consideration of a number of factors. Teacher leaders are not administrative personnel. Their purpose is to facilitate necessary reforms in the local educational system. In many ways, they are like school athletic coaches, offering principals and teachers "the kind of professional development that research says is most effective: ongoing, in school, high quality, focused on instruction…. [A] reform effort… customized to the specific learning needs of the students and the adults in each school" (Guiney, 2001, p. 740).

By working closely with other teachers, with principals, and with students, teacher leaders are well-placed to understand the needs and concerns of all. They can help translate administrative goals and teacher concerns into viable plans for improving the educational environment. The California School Leadership Academy conducts a program that focuses on the major aspects of teacher leadership, providing instruction for teacher leaders and principals in ten key areas of development:

1) Leading Through Vision
2) Building a Vision of Powerful Learning
3) Reculturing to Create Powerful Learning
4) Assessment in Service of Powerful Learning
5) A Thinking, Meaning-Centered Curriculum in Service of Powerful Learning
6) Teaching in Service of Powerful Learning
7) Creating a Diversity-Sensitive Environment for Powerful Student Learning Systems
8) Thinking in Service of Student Learning
9) Building Relationships and Communication Structures in Service of Powerful Student Learning
10) Shared Vision and Shared Leadership in Service of Powerful Learning
(Peterson & Kelley, 2002, p. 331)

This list sums up the duties and challenges of both the teacher leader and the principal. The ten factors describe the common ground on which these administrators and teacher leaders must meet if they are to be genuinely responsive to students' needs. The scope of the problem is easily understood; it is the qualities that go into each of these points in the relationship that require analysis and comprehension.

Teacher Leader: A highly skilled education professional in a non-administrative position who serves as a liaison between teachers and principals, facilitates the development and implementation of improved teaching methods, promotes greater responsiveness to student needs, works toward creating a better learning environment, and addresses issues of school culture, diversity, and related concerns.

Background: Overregulation and Standardization in Schools

Principal: The administrative head of the school; an individual in a non-teaching position whose responsibilities include the proper functioning of the school, interacting with teachers and students, implementing federal, state, and local educational requirements, maintaining discipline, and fostering an environment conducive to learning and childhood development.

Educational Requirements: Rules regarding curricula, teaching methods, school organization, student achievement, testing, and related matters that are enacted by school boards and state and federal authorities, and which must be observed by teachers and principals.

Educational Reforms: Educational techniques, changes in curriculum, and modifications in teacher/student and teacher/principal relationships that depart from those techniques, curricula, and relationships prescribed by Educational Requirements.

For the purposes of this research, it is assumed that teacher leaders and principals participating in this study are representative of teacher leaders and principals in other schools across the United States. Participants will be chosen from among schools considered to most closely approximate the "typical" American public school. Schools will be considered "typical" on the basis of student population—gender, racial and ethnic composition, and socioeconomic status—as well as the demographic characteristics of teacher leaders and principals. Demographic characteristics for teacher leaders and principals will mirror those of students, with additional criteria regarding typical amounts of education and years of experience.

This study is limited by its restriction to "typical" populations; the special circumstances that might attend other populations cannot be adequately considered within its scope due to limitations in researcher time, resources, and funding. The study is also limited by its focus on only a limited number of examples of educational reform as they relate to the process of teacher leader and principal interaction. A wider variety of reform examples might yield a greater variety of conclusions regarding the best possible forms of interaction, and might alter the focus of future research into interaction dynamics as well as affect the development of techniques and programs designed to improve that interaction.

Much of today's educational system is based on the idea that, somehow, all children are the same—that we all learn at the same rates and with the same enthusiasm and level of interest. Under this view, the only source of the very obvious variation in scores and abilities seen in today's classrooms must be laid at the feet of the teachers. But is this accurate? Are all children really so similar that a core curriculum can be applied universally? If one looks behind the modern school system's mountain of regulations, a more complex reality emerges. Children are indeed different. They learn in different ways, have different interests, and possess different abilities. To track children every step of the way through school is to invite the over-generalization of our educational system. A society that claims to place such a high value on diversity and individuality should not be lumping all children together. If policymakers are genuinely concerned with children's progress, they should look toward a more benign and appropriate form of support than the intractable "core curriculum."

At first glance, grouping students by ability would seem a good idea. Proficient students are placed in one class, mediocre students in another, and so on, with each group taught at its own speed and according to its own needs. However, there are decided drawbacks to this approach. As sociologist Donna Eder points out (Eder, 1981), the resulting lack of diversity tends to reinforce existing problems. Learning is more than the accumulation of facts and concepts; it is also a process of psychological growth and development. Many students who perform poorly in English, mathematics, and other subjects lack the necessary study skills or the enthusiasm required to tackle difficult or abstract material. Something perceived as useless or uninteresting is unlikely to inspire much effort.

By schooling low-ability and high-ability pupils together, low-ability pupils are exposed to the study habits and learning skills of their more advanced classmates. Since children learn by imitation, placing low-ability students in a class by themselves will only reinforce poor habits. The lack of interest that so often accompanies poor performance will become general throughout the class, further retarding progress. Moreover, such segregation creates a hierarchy of abilities in which students may wrongly come to understand their position as a reflection of individual worth rather than scholastic aptitude.

Tracking as an Example of System Inflexibility

These negative effects hold true even where students are otherwise from similar backgrounds. The more low-ability students are separated from the general population, the worse their performance. According to a British study conducted on all students born in the first week of March 1958, and following them through adolescence until age twenty-three:

"There were no average differences between grouped and ungrouped schools because within the grouped schools, high-group students performed better than similar students in ungrouped schools, but low-group students did worse. Students in remedial classes performed especially poorly compared to ungrouped students with similar family backgrounds and initial achievement. With low-group losses offsetting high-group gains, the effects on productivity were about zero, but the impact on inequality was substantial." (Gamoran, 1992)

As Gamoran points out, grouping or "tracking" tended to accentuate a student's strengths or weaknesses. High-ability students benefited from segregation, but low-ability students did even worse than before. And while low-ability pupils received no benefit whatsoever from the tracking system, neither did their schools. The net gain in performance among the high-ability group was more than offset by the net losses of the low-ability children. By extension, special magnet schools for mathematics, science, or the arts do nothing to raise standards across the board. In fact, once deprived of their better students, ordinary schools only slide deeper into underperformance.

Dividing an individual class into ability groups does not necessarily improve relative performance either. This method, while keeping students together on a social level, still divides them when it comes to learning. If the teaching method used with each group is identical, the division into groups will only benefit those for whom that method is most suited. A "head start" reading program in preschool, for example, will benefit high-ability students but will likely do nothing for low-ability students who need more attention or cannot keep pace. Students who fall behind in such a program will then be behind their peers—set on the road to underachievement rather than the fast track.

In order for a division into ability groups to benefit all students, careful attention must be paid to the needs of each individual learner. It is exceedingly rare, if not unheard of, for all students to progress at the same rate. While inclusion in a slower-moving group might initially be useful to a student, it may not remain so over time. Pupils in low-ability classes are far more likely than their counterparts in accelerated or enriched classes to describe their schoolwork as too easy or unchallenging (Gamoran, 1992). Separating children by ability stereotypes them. Not only do teachers take a different attitude toward perceived low-ability students, but the students themselves internalize those judgments. A child labeled "slow" is not seen as deserving additional attention or instruction—and may come to expect none.

Another argument against tracking, particularly in mathematics, is provided by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study conducted in 1999. The study showed a notable slump in the math scores of American students between the fourth and eighth grades—a drop relative to their European and Asian counterparts that was never recovered. Interestingly, American students are tracked at a younger age than their foreign counterparts, and tracking in the United States is far more frequently done within individual schools rather than by placing ability groups in entirely different schools, as the European model sometimes does (Brown, 2000).

This evidence complicates earlier studies by Robert E. Slavin, which showed a general increase in performance among high-ability math groupings, suggesting a real but narrow benefit to a small group of children. Slavin reviewed many years' worth of studies performed on elementary school students; however, his conclusion that grouping worked for some students did not prevent him from finding that the overall effect of grouping was zero. Just as in other studies, grouping students by English and mathematical ability had the same ultimate effect as grouping them by any other skill: talented students were lifted up, while low-ability students were dragged down (Slavin, 1987). Thus, tracking cannot be blamed for the American slump in mathematics that begins in the fourth grade and ends in the eighth, but neither can it be credited with any overall success. Virtually all American schools use tracking, yet only a handful of students benefit, while many European schools do not employ tracking and yet their students as a rule outperform their American peers.

If tracking is not the answer, what is? As many studies have shown, individual attention to a student's needs matters most. Students learn and develop at different rates, and they struggle with different problems—both academic and personal. Tracking treats students as though they were indistinguishable parts of a bureaucratic machine. A student in a low-ability group learns only as much as is expected of the whole group. Far wiser would be a course of study in which students freely associate with one another, learning side by side in the same classroom. There they can develop the personal, moral, social, and intellectual skills necessary to become functioning members of society. Where any student suffers from shortcomings in a particular area, that student can be tutored independently for as long as required. A mentor can tailor a remedial program to fit a particular pupil's specific needs—addressing not only gaps in mathematical knowledge, for instance, but also a fear of performing in public, difficulty with reading, or unsupportive conditions at home.

In an attempt to balance academic achievement and character education, schools and teachers must respect the primary role of the parents and family. Particularly in view of the growing cultural diversity of our society, it is important to recognize that a child's earliest values will be learned through the example and teaching of his or her parents. Teachers must be careful not to create barriers between parents and children by contradicting or questioning values maintained in the home. If we are to avoid this pitfall, we must improve communications between parents and schools and persuade parents that teachers want to work with them to provide the best education possible for their children. Important values can be reinforced both at home and in school (Cavazos, 2002).

A child is not merely an academic statistic. A child is a complete person struggling to become an adult and a functioning member of society. As Cavazos states, character education is as important as academic education, and only a careful analysis of each child's personal situation can hope to resolve the difficulties that arise. The imposition of a core curriculum on every student is tantamount to saying that every child is the same—an assumption that no amount of government mandate can make true.