Teacher “Leadership”?:
The Need for Bridges Between Foundations and Teacher Education
*CC BY-ND 4.0James K. Rigney, University of Floridajamesrig@ufl.eduAmanda Pate, University of Floridaamandataylor@ufl.eduLast year, our graduate program at the University of Florida was reorganized. Where once there were two separate programs for teacher education and foundations, now we are combined into a single program, Teachers, Schools, and Society. As one of the foundations scholar who spearheaded this reorganization put it, our new program focuses on “broadening and deepening our expertise on both the institutional and societal contexts of education.” We think this reorganization reflects the need--and opportunity--for “bridges” between foundational studies and teaching future teachers. Too often, we believe, practices in teacher education are accepted and promulgated uncritically. Thus, integrating foundations into teacher education provides an opportunity to ameliorate such uncritical practices. For example, much of the literature regarding teacher leadership, an often mentioned concept in teacher education, seems to take itself for granted (Wenner & Campbell, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Teachers are positioned as leaders in waiting, and their leadership is framed as important for reform (Ross et al., 2011). Further, Barth (2001) argued that just as every student can learn, every teacher can (and should) lead. But what does it mean to be a teacher leader, and how can foundations inform this concept? We argue that any adequate attempt to explain teacher leadership must include foundational lenses that critically examine teaching, administration, and schooling.
Functionally, the literature suggests teacher leadership exists in both formal and informal ways. Formal teacher leadership roles often reinforce the structure within a school by giving teachers administrative responsibilities, perhaps assigning certain teachers as “union representatives, department heads, curriculum specialists, mentors, or members of a site-based management team” (York-Barr and Duke, 2004, p. 263). More informally, teacher leaders could be those who are involved in “coaching peers to resolve instructional problems, encouraging parent participation, working with colleagues in small groups or teams, modeling reflective practices, or articulating a vision for improvement” (York-Barr and Duke, 2004, p. 263). Tellingly, teacher leaders who assumed informal roles of leadership often were in a better position to enact change within the school structure (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2015; Wasley, 1991). Echoing Barth’s charge that all teachers lead, there is literature to support the idea of teacher leadership existing as a “stance” where all teachers are expected to demonstrate the characteristics of leadership (Ross et al., 2011, p. 1218). In sum, despite the prevalence of the idea, it lacks a cohesive definition. After all, leadership is inherently a social position, dependent upon context, and thus always to interpretation. Thus, we believe foundational frameworks, especially sociological, should inform conceptualizations of teacher leadership.
Considering the work of sociologist Max Weber complicates simple notions of teacher leadership. Starting at the macro scale, Weber (1968) argued that modernity itself coincides with the “ever-increasing integration of all individuals and all fact-situations into one compulsory institution” (p. 698). The very keywords in his formulation—integration, compulsory, institution—call to mind the modern school. Weber argues this integration of disparate social organizations, of which schooling plays a definite part, into one modernized whole has been facilitated by the “two great rationalizing forces” of bureaucracy and the expansion of the market economy (p. 698).
Teacher leadership scholarship does not appear to spend much time exposing and investigating these two powerful forces. And this is a problem. The implementation of teacher leadership can easily become a force for administrative demands, prerogatives themselves shaped by national and state-level policies emphasizing bureaucratic and market-driven conceptions of schooling. Foundations scholar Brian Dotts (2013) reminds us of the difference between schooling and education, the former being connected with the institutional demands of the state. Education, on the other hand, brings out the constructed and contingent nature of our institutions. Much of the teacher leadership literature focuses on institutionalizing teacher power without asking questions of the institution itself. The more formal version of teacher leadership, especially, suggests that teachers should reinforce the schooling hierarchy, becoming petty bureaucrats in its worst manifestations. In our collective 15 years in the classroom, we have seen administrators work diligently toward the types of ends Dotts labels as “schooling”. We have not experienced much concern with Dotts’ conception of education.
One answer to the question “why foundations (now)” is that schooling often objectifies its students and teachers. As Dotts argued, rather than emancipating, students and teachers “are increasingly expected to fulfill the technical and administrative requirements of the institution, which are manifested in acute concerns over organization, efficiency, and the standardization of operating procedures and patterns of behavior” (Dotts, 2013, p. 151). Accordingly, a foundational understanding can contribute to teacher leadership research. First, teacher educators need to ask whether teacher leadership expands the possibilities for education within schools or whether it elevates the position of the teacher within a bureaucratic hierarchy, questions explored by foundational scholars for the better part of the century. Second, while efforts to add autonomy and prestige to the teaching profession are laudable, it makes no sense to pursue these ends in a way that reinforces the accountability movement, which itself has displaced much of the important work being done in foundations of education (Lewis, 2013). In short, teacher educators need to ask the questions long posed by foundations scholars and then determine the best course of action given the current constraints on schools.
On the surface, the different conceptualizations of teacher leadership sound plausible. In our experience, the teachers we worked with were overwhelmingly caring, thoughtful individuals who wanted to make the world a little better. Asking stronger teachers to step up and lead seems quite reasonable. What foundations can provide is a more nuanced concept of the teacher leader, one that asks what it means to lead within--and potentially lead others out of--an inequitable and overly bureaucratic schooling system. The merging of teacher education and foundations in our program is too recent to make any broad claims. Nevertheless, we believe the study of schooling will benefit when it is paired with issues in teaching and teacher education and a foundational lens. We can say that, for us, the ongoing merger of teacher education and foundations pushes us beyond seeing teaching as an isolated professional concern, but one that is embedded within the history, politics and social structures of the global society.
References
Barth, R. S. (2001, February). Teacher Leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200607
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1086/461816
Dotts, B. (2013). Schooling in the ‘iron cage’ and the crucial role of interpretive, normative, and critical perspectives in social foundations studies. Educational Studies, 49(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.767257
Lewis, J. B. (2013). New challenges, new vision: Why social foundations and teacher education partnerships matter. Educational Studies, 49(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.767258
Ross, D., Adams, A., Bondy, E., Dana, N., Dodman, S., & Swain, C. (2011). Preparing teacher leaders: Perceptions of the impact of a cohort-based, job embedded, blended teacher leadership program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1213–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.005
Szczesiul, S. A., & Huizenga, J. L. (2015). Bridging structure and agency: Exploring the role of teacher leadership in teacher collaboration. Journal of School Leadership, (2), 368.
Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Nachdr., Vol. 2; G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134–171. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653478
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.
Biographies
James K. Rigney is a doctoral student in the Teachers, Schools, and Society program at the University of Florida. His research interests include teacher intellectualism and teacher professionalism. Alongside his various jobs of landscaper, computer repair technician, and real estate appraiser, he was a secondary English and Social Studies teacher for 9 years.
Amanda Pate is a doctoral student in the Teachers, Schools, and Society program at the University of Florida. Her research interests include K-12 teacher leadership and K-12 teacher autonomy. She has an MA in Educational Leadership and was a 5th grade reading teacher for 7 years prior to beginning her Ph.D program.