Distributed Leadership Practice: The Subject Matters1

Jennifer Z. Sherer

Northwestern University

Preliminary draft prepared for the symposium Recent Research in Distributed Leadership at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 15, 2004. Please do not distribute.

1 Work on this paper was supported by the Distributed Leadership Project which is funded by research grants from the National Science Foundation (REC-9873583) and the Spencer Foundation. Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy and Institute for Policy Research also supported work on this paper. All opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency. Please send all correspondence to the author at Northwestern University, School of Education and Social Policy, 2115 North Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60201 or to [email protected]. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 1 of 52 Introduction The distributed leadership perspective suggests that one way to examine leadership practice is to focus on how the situation of practice shapes the activity of instructional leadership. In schools, the situation of instruction is shaped in part by the subject-matter organization of the curriculum (Stodolsky, 1988; McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993). This paper investigates how this subject-matter organization of instruction constitutes a key aspect of the situation of school leadership practice. Elementary school leaders often talk about their leadership in general terms, but I claim that there are differences between subject matter leadership practice. My argument centers on the question of how leadership practice in literacy is similar to and/or different from leadership practice in mathematics. To illustrate the effect of subject-matter organization on school leadership, I consider the case of an urban elementary school. This case study reveals that subject does matter. In this paper I discuss two significant ways in which math leadership practice varies from the leadership practice in literacy at Adams School2 from the fall of 1999 to the spring of 2003. First, I consider how the school’s leadership prioritizes literacy. Second, I discuss how the leaders and followers3 interact differently in mathematics leadership activities than they do in literacy leadership activities. The tools used in these leadership activities frame some of those differences.

When we think of school leadership for instructional change, we often think of this leadership generically. In fact, when researchers in the Distributed Leadership Study spoke with principals across eleven schools about their leadership practice as it relates to instructional change, they often spoke initially about leadership in very general terms. When asked: “What are your goals at Adams this year for math and science and literacy?

2 Adams is a pseudonym. All names associated with Adams are also pseudonyms. 3 For the purposes of this paper, I use the term ‘leaders’ to describe individuals who take on some leadership role (be in a positional leader such as the principal or an informal leader such as the four math teachers who act as the lead math team) and ‘followers’ to describe individuals who are not in leadership roles at that particular moment in time. This term usually refers to teachers. I see these roles as dynamic—a leader in a particular activity may become a follower in the next activity. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 2 of 52 So we can take one subject matter at a time. Whichever you want to start with,” one assistant principal immediately responded,

“Well basically our overall goal is to strive for having 50% of our kids at or above grade level in all subject matter. (DATE)”

This was a very typical response; in fact, at one school, every positional leader we interviewed had a similar initial response. However, when we probed more deeply, both in our questions about practice and in our observations of leadership practice, we found that instructional leadership does not happen generally. Rather than just leading for instruction, school leaders lead differently in specific disciplines such as mathematics, science, and language arts. I begin with my theoretical framework, using distributed leadership and activity theory, as well as subject matter literature, to frame my work. Next, I discuss my case study methodology. In the remainder of the paper, I discuss two broad differences in leadership practice between literacy and mathematics.4 I first show how the leaders prioritize literacy over mathematics through variations in their leadership practice. While the prioritization of literacy over math in elementary school leadership may not be surprising, an understanding of how priority shapes leadership practice is valuable for the insight into school leadership it provides. Second, I discuss how the interactions between followers and leaders vary across subject matter. I conclude the paper with ideas for future work.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework that guides my research and analysis draws on two bodies of work: distributed cognition and its relation to distributed leadership and activity theory. These theoretical strands are connected to my belief in the distributed nature of leadership practice. By this I mean that the practice of leadership is distributed across multiple people; it lives in how leaders interact with other leaders as well as followers; it lives in how they use tools and artifacts; it lives in both the people who are the leaders as well as the activities that they carry out. In the distribution of leadership,

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 3 of 52 activity is key. To build an understanding of leadership activity, and how to study it, I draw on work from activity theory.

Distributed Leadership The distributed leadership framework approaches the study of leadership with the notion that leadership is distributed across different people and artifacts, within a particular context. (Spillane, Halverson, Diamond, 1999, 2004) It borrows from Lave's 1993 notion of "stretched across” suggesting that leadership is stretched across different people and different artifacts, within different contexts. This does not mean that leadership tasks are merely delegated to multiple people, although that is one aspect of distributed leadership. In his discussion of distributed cognition, Roy Pea states that distributed cognition is not about the end result being more than the sum of the parts, it is about the end result of distributed cognition being different than the sum of the parts. (Pea, 1993) In taking this idea of distributed cognition, and applying it to leadership, we then ask, how is leadership practice distributed? What are the subtleties in this distribution, how can we study them, and what do they reveal about leadership practice? In choosing to look at leadership in this way, by acknowledging that it is a complex system that is about the people, the tools, and the context, but also the activity, I have a conceptual framework with which to look at leadership. (See Figure 1.) Figure 1.

Leadership practice as a system

Context

Activity.

Tools People

Graphic 1: The focus of my work: the leadership system

4 Because science does not directly fit into the school’s main goals, I have reduced this subject matter Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 4 of 52 Activity Theory The scholarship on activity theory is extensive. I find Engestrom and Cole’s (Cole, 1996; Engestrom, 1999) frameworks the most helpful in guiding my analytical work. In Engestrom’s model of activity theory (1987), an activity system integrates the subject (who does the activity), the object (who the activity is done to), and the instruments (what is used to accomplish the activity) into a unified whole. According to activity theory, contexts are activity systems. Engestrom suggests that contexts are better seen as activity systems that tie actors, outcomes, and mediating artifacts into a unified system of action. “This is a thoroughly relational view of context,” (Engstrom, 1999). I adopt this view, taking as my context two different subject matter divisions in elementary schools. I will analyze the context of leadership practice in literacy as well as the context of leadership practice in math. Cole (1996) discusses context as being both something that surrounds as well as weaves into the situation. Using this notion applied to the work of school leadership, math and literacy both surround leadership activity as well as weave into the activity. Michael Cole extends Engestrom’s mediational triangle (discussed above) and this provides me with a way to identify (by breaking down) critical components of leadership activity (Cole, 1996). It guides me toward what data to collect and how to organize it. Figure 2 (see next page) is a sketch of Cole’s expansion of Engestrom’s mediational triangle with examples of data that we collected.

analysis to mathematics and literacy. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 5 of 52 Mediating artifacts--resources: Read Write Well, word wall, 5 Week Assessments, research books and articles Participants--"every teacher is a writing teacher first,” various administrators, Goals—increase test teachers, and assistants scores; get all students at or above grade level LITERACY

Rules

Division of labor--2 literacy Community-- coordinators; literacy committee; Breakfast Clubs principal involved; writing team Literacy Committee Meetings; Teacher Leader Meetings School Improvement Planning

Mediating artifacts--external classes and programs, text books, various teacher bought and produced books and packets, ISAT item analysis, 5 Week Assessment timeline. Participants—math teachers, various administrators and assistants Goals—increase test scores; get all students at or above grade level

MATH

Rules

Community— Professional Development Meetings Division of labor--no formal School Improvement Planning math leader; 4 teachers form math team

Figure 2: M. Cole’s expansion of Engestrom’s mediational triangle with some relevant data points identified. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 6 of 52 One important element of the mediational triangle is mediating artifacts (tools). The construct of tools is a very powerful one in the sociocultural domain. Many social theorists believe that learning takes place in the social interaction between people and tools in the context of their environment (Hutchins, 1995; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). Anthropology reminds us that the tools of a culture embody its cultural beliefs. The construct of cultural tools is, therefore, given many definitions. For the purpose of this paper, I will borrow from Cole and Norman's constructs of artifact and Wersch's construct of tools when I refer to the tool component of the leadership system. Cole prefers the more generic term artifact, to the term "tool" that was used by the Russian socio-culturalists. He describes artifacts as fundamental constituents of culture and sees them as being both material and ideal. He sees artifacts as existing only in terms of something else--the context of the situation or activity, (Cole, 1996). Wersch defines a cultural tool as a mediating device used to shape action in certain ways. Mediation is the process involving the potential of cultural tools to shape actions (Wersch, 1998). Artifacts are externalized representations of ideas and intentions used by practitioners in their practice (Norman, 1988). In thinking about cultural tools, socio-cultural theory drives us to ask different questions, and herein lies one element of the importance of cultural tools. We must ask: How are the tools and people changed by their use? Who is using them? For what ends and in whose interests? And finally, what are the origins of the activity? (Lee, 2001). This is the beginning of a framework for analysis using activity theory, which looks at the mediated action in terms of the interactions between mediating artifacts, division of labor, and rules--with the community, the individual, and the object of the activity taken into account (Cole, 1996). Activity theory, and within that the existence of the cultural tools, helps us to better understand a leadership situation. By examining the cultural tools of a school’s leadership, and how they shape the leadership activity, we are provided with a different way to think about leadership practice. In distributed leadership, as in much socio-cultural work, tools are a critical component. People do not just lead alone—they use tools in their work. I believe that

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 7 of 52 which tools are used, and how they are used, defines one way in which power is wielded. For the purposes of this paper, I will primarily use the term tool. Activity theory helped frame the data I collected and analyzed. I look at several tools (mediating artifacts) that leaders use in their work: literacy articles, a framework created based on a chapter from a literacy book, classroom math activities, and a time line for teaching math. I also look at the activities in which these tools are used; in Cole’s triangle this is the community component; in terms of the data collected and analyzed, it is meetings. Other elements of Cole’s activity system are participants and division of labor. In response to this framing, I considered the people involved in leadership practice, as well as what tasks and roles they take on. I find goals to be another important component. I frame my entire data collection and analysis around the stated goals of the school.

Subject Matter Shulman (1986) identified the need to consider the relationship between teachers’ cognitive understanding of subject matter and their practice. While many researchers see subject matter clearly as an important context for teachers' work (Ball & Lacy, 1984; Little, 1993; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Siskin, 1990, 1991, 1994), few look at subject matter as it pertains to elementary teachers. Much of the subject matter scholarship focuses primarily on the high school grades, where teachers’ practice is structured around subject matter constructs. Because elementary teachers typically teach many subjects, their practice is often considered non-subject matter specific. However, Stodolsky’s (1988) work challenges this notion, showing that elementary teachers treat subject matter differently within their own classes. She looked at fifth grade classrooms and found that time allocations vary for subject areas, as do the patterns of activities teachers use in different subject areas. While much of this work has focused on teaching practice, very little has examined leadership or the implications of subject matter on leadership practice. (For exception, see Stein & D'Amico, (2000) and Burch & Spillane, (in press)). There is a critical disciplinary difference between math and literacy which forces us to conceptualize the foundations of math and literacy differently. Consequently, leaders

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 8 of 52 must approach reform to these subject areas differently (Stein & D’Amico, 2000). This chapter will explore how the leadership at one school does just that.

Methodology What exactly is this thing we call leadership practice? Capturing leadership practice is a difficult undertaking, as much of the day to day work of leaders is often done either behind closed doors, or carried out with a seamless grace that often leaves the observer blind to the intricate layers of decision making, expertise, experience, and wisdom at play. My first challenge was to identify exactly who the leaders are at Adams School, and then to capture what it is these key players actually do.5 One way to get at a leader’s priorities is to look at the actions undertaken by that individual. Research shows that what people say they do is often different from what they actually do (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Orr, 1991). My approach was to attempt to capture leadership practice in two ways: by looking at what leaders and followers do, (based on data from meetings, informal leader shadows, and field note observations) and by looking at what they say they do (based on interview data of seven administrators and three teacher leaders, for a total of 18 formal interviews and 8 informal interviews). I analyze day-to-day leadership practice in an urban elementary school through a case study approach, investigating leadership practice as it connects with instructional improvement in math and literacy. Case study methodology is appropriate for in-depth analysis of complex issues and processes like school leadership (Shulman, 1987; Stake, 1995; Erickson, 1986; Peshkin, 1993, Yin, 1994). It makes sense to carry out a case study for my work, given my questions and the complexities of school instructional leadership. I use a constant comparative methodology with within-case sampling, (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994). I collect and analyze data on comparable dimensions of math and literacy leadership within my case study school. I sample activities, processes, tools, people, roles, and times that are theoretically driven by

5 I was not satisfied that administrators are the only school leaders. They are considered positional leaders in this paper, and teachers who take on leadership responsibilities are considered to be teacher leaders, informal in the sense that they do not have titles that distinguish them as leaders. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 9 of 52 elements from my conceptual framework, as this is an important element of within-case sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Data collection Case study methodology pushes for the collection of multiple sources of data: documentation, archival records, direct observation, participant observation, and physical artifacts (Yin, 1994). Collecting a variety of data helps reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation—it allows for redundancy of data gathering and procedural challenges to explanations (Stake, 1995). These methods of triangulation help achieve reliability in qualitative work. For this study, I engaged in an intensive three-year investigation of leadership practice in the school involving interviews with leaders and teachers, observations of teaching and leading, the collection of a wide variety of relevant artifacts, and thick description (Geertz, 1983) field notes for each visit. Meetings involving math and/or literacy have primarily been video taped; interviews have primarily been audio taped. When taping was not a possibility, copious field notes were recorded. This work is embedded in a larger research project: The Distributed Leadership Study (DLS), a 5-year longitudinal study of elementary school leadership funded by the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The research team conducted the 6-month pilot phase during the winter and spring of 1999. The first full year of data collection commenced in September 1999 and involved eight Chicago elementary schools as intensive case sites (an additional five schools served as interview only sites). For the purpose of this analysis, I look at data collected during the course of four consecutive school years: 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003.6 Based on the instructional goals of the leadership teams, I have focused my analysis on activities that directly relate to these stated goals. Interview data have been collected and analyzed to identify the instructional goals that the leaders have for the school, across time. Interestingly enough, despite a large shift in leadership that took

6 I began studying Adams School in September, 2000. Prior to 2000, Richard Halverson, and several of our colleagues (Lisa Walker, Lauren Banks, Baylen Linnekin) collected data at Adams School as well. Therefore, we have data for Adams School that has been collected over the span of four consecutive school years, spanning five calendar years, 1999-2003. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 10 of 52 place over these four years, the goals remain remarkably consistent: raise student performance on standardized tests both in literacy (reading and writing) and math.7 Because of this singular and clear goal, I chose to concentrate my research on leadership activities that most strongly connect with the achievement of this goal. Meetings are one of the most tangible ways that leadership practice can be observed. They provide a powerful opportunity to observe leadership in practice, as well as to watch the interactions between leaders and followers. Shadowing a leader throughout her day and observing meetings are good places to see leaders use tools. Interviews are a critical way to uncover multiple facets within a case study (Stake, 1995.) The follow-up interviews are critical to determine why and how the changes have occurred. In addition, interviews are effective ways to get at what leaders think they do, as well as find out which individuals teachers and leaders identify as leaders. Interviews are also important venues for learning about the people. They act as a critical place to identify instructional goals leaders and teachers have. The nuances of leadership are often found in the in-between places of the school day. For this reason, one of my most valuable data components is field notes—observations and snippets of conversations caught in the hallways, after meetings, before school, and in various offices and public spaces. The data collection process has been iterative. As I have found evidence of leadership activity that is important to the school’s goals, based on formal interviews or informal chats with people, I have periodically widened, narrowed, or shifted my data collection net. The purpose of collecting this variety of data, across time, is to gain a better understanding of leadership practice in both math and literacy. The data captures the activity of leadership practice across several leadership teams/eras. Information about the tools used and the people involved are also captured in the data collected.

Data analysis The purpose of this case study work was to determine how subject matter made a difference in the way that the same school leaders engaged in their work. In order to

7 This is not very surprising since the district and the state put large emphasis on improving test scores with severe consequences tied to any failure by schools to do so. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 11 of 52 describe the prioritization of subject matter, I selected a cross section of math and literacy meetings. This cross section is representative in that it samples from multiple meetings, over time, and across both subject areas. The meetings in this subsection are typical of meetings at Adams School. I coded meetings across several elements: who led the meetings, who talked at the meetings, how much they talked, how they talked (praising, inviting, standing up, sitting down, etc.), and what kind of talk they engaged in (setting expectations, setting goals, offering strategies, etc.). (See Appendix A for coding scheme.) The interview data was initially coded for subject matter relevance—each time math or literacy came up in an interview it was coded. I then broke down how much positional leaders talked about subject matter and looked at what they said about it, based on the original codes. The interview data, as well as the field note data, were used to triangulate findings from the meeting analysis. The analysis around the leader/follower interactions looks broadly at a sub-set of (20) meetings and then on a micro-level at talk in several representative meetings. After the initial coding of the meetings, a pattern emerged around differences in leader and follower interactions. I noticed that teachers in literacy meetings participated at higher levels than they did in math meetings. I looked more closely at this pattern, returning to the coding scheme to decipher how they talked and what they said. I contrasted this against the teacher talk in math meetings. It became clear that the elements of the activity systems vary across math and literacy. While I have only excerpted from a few meetings for the purposes of this paper, these excerpts give an accurate portrayal of the patterns that emerge in the data. Again, I use interview and field note data to triangulate my findings.

The Subject Matters The Context The district context. Urban schools serve as an important focus for the study of instructional leadership because of the challenges they face: high poverty rates, high mobility rates, high teacher turn-over rates. The public, and some scholars, share a certain skepticism about the appropriateness of intellectually rigorous curricula for poor students (Anyon, 1981; Spillane & Jennings, 1996). In light of this, leaders in urban

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 12 of 52 schools in high poverty neighborhoods share a heightened challenge in making instructional changes happen. My focus is a school within the Chicago Public School system. During the time that I studied Adams School, the district context is particularly relevant as there were several mandates that impacted math and literacy. In 1996, a restructured Chicago Public School administration introduced two major initiatives that brought high stakes accountability into the district. First, they put schools with 15% or fewer students performing at or above grade level on academic probation. Second, in an effort to end social promotion, students in 3rd, 6th, and 8th grades were required to meet certain scores on the ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) in order to move to the next grade. These accountability measures dramatically transformed the landscape of the Chicago Public Schools, and Adams was no exception. Many structures that I analyze at the school were implemented, to some degree, in response to these district accountability measures. In year 03, the district implemented a reading initiative that prescribed the amount of time students were to receive literacy instruction (minimum two hours each day) and the types of instruction that were to be delivered.

The school context. In order to study leadership practice, I focus on observing the activities of leadership at one school: Adams School. Adams is a public elementary school serving between 1050-1200 pre-K through eighth grade students. The students are 97% African-American; 97% of them are low income, and the school has a relatively high mobility rate, somewhere in the neighborhood of 35%. In the late 1980’s, a new principal, Dr. Williams (at the time, Ms. Williams), arrived at Adams School. She entered a school that housed students in two buildings. A general lack of community existed between the two faculties (K-3 in the primary building, pre-K and 4-8 in the upper building) that was represented by this geographic divide. In addition to the rare communication between the buildings, there was little communication among the faculty at all. It was very strange…There may be four classes at a grade level and they did not even talk. They did not have a clue at what was going on in each other’s classrooms, they just basically closed the door… I could not see how kids could move from one grade level to the other, and not have a common core of

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 13 of 52 knowledge. They would go to the next grade and everybody would know something different. (Dr. Williams, interview, Date)

Teachers closed their doors and did their own thing. The school, like its neighbors, was struggling with low standardized test scores in both reading and math. When Dr. Williams arrived at Adams, 16.1% of the students were scoring at or above national norms on standardized tests in reading. Structures: Dr. Williams worked to build mathematics and language arts instruction as a way to improve student learning and performance on standardized tests. In her 14 years at Adams, Dr. Williams also built professional community—and I argue that this professional community revolved around language arts. There are two goals of the language arts leadership work that was done at Adams: to improve instruction and to improve professional community. One structure Dr. Williams created to meet both of these goals is the Five Week Assessment cycle. With the help of her literacy coordinator, Ms. Tracy, Dr. Williams implemented the Five Week Assessment cycle to answer the questions, “Are the students learning? How do you know?” This cycle was also implemented for math. The literacy coordinator and the math coordinator distribute assessments every five weeks to grades 1- 8. They then use the data to drive a variety of decisions. In response to a district initiative (199X), Adams created a School Improvement Plan every spring. The plan has a math and a language arts component. Dr. Williams invited the faculty to take part in the creation of these components of the plan, and many teachers as well as positional leaders collaborated to create the plan each year. The Five Week Assessment cycle and the School Improvement Plan were structures built around math and literacy. Leadership shift: Dr. Schooler (the math coordinator) left Adams after Year 01 of our study. Dr. Williams and Ms. Tracy left Adams in the summer of 2002, after Year 02 of our study. The Assistant Principal, Mrs. Richards, became interim principal in September 2001, and was officially selected principal (by the school’s site council) in January, 2002. This shift in positional leadership changed the school, as any shift of such magnitude will. While this change has an impact on the structures, people, tools, and leadership activity I discuss in this paper, and is critical in a discussion of leadership

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 14 of 52 practice at Adams over time, delving deeply into the shift is beyond the scope of this paper. I will address it when relevant.

A close look at leadership practice at Adams reveals that subject does matter. The following sections will outline two significant ways in which math leadership practice varies from literacy leadership practice at Adams school from the fall of 1999 to the spring of 2003. The first relates to the school’s prioritization of literacy; the second relates to the differences in interactions between leaders and followers across subject matter leadership activity.

Prioritization of literacy In response to the district’s emphasis on improving literacy instruction, the leaders in Adams school prioritize literacy over mathematics through variations in their leadership practice. In this analysis, I consider several elements of the activity system discussed earlier. As stated by the school’s positional leadership in interviews, one main goal they have is to improve student performance in math and literacy (interviews, 1999- 2003). In consideration of this goal, I examine math and literacy meetings (leadership activities or communities) to show the four ways in which prioritization is manifested. I consider the people involved (participants), how they allocate time, the participation of leaders (division of labor), and the rhetoric of school leadership.

The personnel decisions (participants and division of labor). According to the formal staff list for the 1999-2000 school year, the principal, two assistant principals, one counselor, and a disciplinarian are in charge of Adams; at least they are the five administrators listed at the top. But a look further down that list reveals other positional leaders: a literacy coordinator, a math coordinator, an African American heritage coordinator8, a science magnet lab teacher. Countless other teachers’ names are found on this list, and while their titles do not indicate any leadership responsibilities, some of these individuals also carry incredible leadership weight.

8 This is later referred to as the Reading Coordinator, since her position/responsibilities changed over the time of our study. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 15 of 52 In the course of our study of Adams School, both the math coordinator and the literacy coordinator were promoted (externally), and both women left the school. While the math coordinator was not replaced, the literacy coordinator was. When asked about the decision not to hire a new math coordinator, Dr. Williams said,

“at this point in time, I wouldn’t want to pull any of them (the math teachers) out of the classroom… And so we were trying to work with the structure – because what – you know you start pulling all your best teachers and you’re back to square one.” (Principal interview, 01.31.01)9

However, the next year when the literacy coordinator left, Mrs. Richards (the new principal) pulled one of her teachers out of the classroom and placed her in the literacy coordinator position. As a response to the math coordinator’s absence, the math assistant (a grandparent volunteer turned staff member) was expected to take on more responsibility for ordering, distributing, and collecting math resources as well as scoring math assessment tests and keeping records. She retired after year 03 and was not replaced. The void was also filled by the establishment of the “Math Team”—a team of four, full time math teachers from grades 1, 3, 6, and 8. As part of this transition, in which the Math Team was expected to take over the responsibility for instructional change in math, they received outside training by a local university in certain mathematics techniques. The principal’s intent, and the intent of the university program, was for them to then come back and train the math teachers in the building. Here we see priority on one level: the distribution of participants varies across the subject areas. In literacy, there are several leaders who are involved in literacy activities, most of whom have no classroom responsibilities. (See Table 1.) On the other hand, the math leaders are, with one exception, teachers will full teaching loads, expected to do math leadership activities (ordering materials, organizing materials, preparing and running math in-services, meetings, and tutorials; plan out, create, distribute, score, and analyze Five Week Assessments). One striking difference is that while positional

9 Adams has a tradition of hiring key positions from within. They feel that an outsider cannot effectively fill these positions. (field notes, 2000-3) Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 16 of 52 leadership is consistently involved in literacy activities, once the math coordinator left the school, positional leaders are rarely involved in math leadership practice.

Table 1: Personnel decisions—the participants Leader, position in school, % of contracted day spent in the classroom teaching students. Name Position and subject involvement % of day Year in position spend in classroom Dr. Schooler Math—Math coordinator 0 Year 01 Ms. Dodge Math—Math assistant 0 Year 01, 02, 03 Ms. Walthers Math—8th grade math teacher 100 Year 01, 02, 03, 04 Ms. Brown Math—1st grade teacher M 100 Year 01, 02, 03 Math—Language arts, math 100 Year 04 integration teacher Ms. Sunny Math—3rd grade teacher M 100 Year 01, 02, 03 No involvement—Computer 0 Year 04 coordinator Ms. Math—2nd grade teacher 100 Year 04 Matthews Ms. Holmes Math—6th grade math teacher 100 Year 01, 02, 03, 04

Ms. Smith Math & Literacy—literacy 0% Year 01, 02, 03, 04 assistant

Ms. Tracy Literacy—Literacy coordinator 0 Year 01, 02 Ms. Ogden Literacy—5th grade teacher 100 Year 01, 02 Literacy—Literacy coordinator 0 Year 0310, 04 Ms. Walsh Literacy—8th grade teacher 100 Year 01, 02, 03, 04 Literacy—Literacy coordinator 0 Year 03 Dr. Williams Literacy—Principal 0 Year 01, 02 Ms. Richards Literacy—Principal 0 Year 03, 04 Ms. James Literacy—1st grade teacher L 100 Year 01, 02 Literacy—Primary librarian 70 Year 03, 04 Ms. Baize Literacy—African-American 50 Year 01, 02 Heritage coordinator Literacy—Reading coordinator 50 Year 03, 04 Ms. Literacy—3rd grade teacher L1 100 Year 01, 02 Grovenor No involvement—Special Ed 0 Year 03, 04 coordinator Ms. Landly Literacy—3rd grade teacher L 100 Year 03, 04 Ms. Manny Literacy—2nd grade teacher 100 Year 01, 02, 03 Literacy—Reading Coordinator 0 Year 04

10 Ms. Walsh was the literacy coordinator from September until December of 2001; she then returned to the 8th grade and Ms. Ogden became the literacy coordinator. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 17 of 52 Consider how leadership tasks are done, or how the division of labor among participants varies across math and literacy (Table 2)

Table 2. Which leaders carry out the leadership tasks? (Snapshot from Year 02; division of labor) Who carries out the Leadership Task Who carries out the tasks? tasks?

MATH LITERACY 8th grade teacher Organize and teach in-services Literacy coordinator 1st grade teacher M Create 5 Week Assessment 3rd grade teacher M schedule 6th grade teacher Copy and distribute assessments Score open ended problems/writing Math assistant Orders and distributes materials Literacy coordinator Distributes and collects assessment Literacy assistant Math assistant Scores assessments Literacy coordinator Literacy assistant Tracks and enters scores Literacy assistant 8th grade teacher Sits on subject area committee Principal 1st grade teacher M Literacy coordinator 3rd grade teacher M 1st grade teacher L 6th grade teacher Reading coordinator 3rd grade teacher L1 2nd grade teacher 8th grade teacher Runs meetings Principal 1st grade teacher M Literacy coordinator 3rd grade teacher M Various teachers 6th grade teacher

Time allocation. The time that is allocated for literacy activities, as compared with the time allocated for math activities, is another striking difference in leadership practice at Adams School. A common thread that runs through all of the schools in our study is that the people who work in them share their frustration about not having enough time to do all of the tasks their practice demands. For this reason, time is a critical issue in schools. While many teachers and administrators at Adams work long hours, they still bemoan the lack of time (field note and interview data show this). The time that leadership chooses to dedicate to certain activities is one clear indication of how they prioritize aspects of their work.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 18 of 52 For the purpose of this discussion, I analyze time allocation in two ways: the frequency of meetings that took place over the course of four school years (see Table 3) and the time leaders spent talking about subject matter in formal interviews. Meetings. Interestingly enough, the time that leaders spend on literacy, as seen through the meeting data, is not only shown by the number of meetings they schedule, but also by the meetings that they attend. School leaders at Adams attend more literacy meetings, and speak more often at literacy meetings, then they do math meetings. This will be taken up in further detail in the next section that examines the participation of leaders.

Table 3. Meeting Types and frequency11 (Year 01—04; 48 meetings total) Meeting Type Frequency Literacy Frequency Math Breakfast Club Meeting 6 All-faculty Meeting 7 212 Literacy Committee Meeting 2 1 Grade Level Meeting 4 Professional Development Meeting 5 2 School Improvement Planning Meeting 2 2 Other Meetings 15 (non-literacy, non-math) Informal Meetings numerous

Subject matter talk in leader interviews. An analysis of the interview data suggests that literacy gets more attention in interviews as well. As part of the formal interview protocol, formal leaders were asked about their goals for instructional change for math, science, and literacy. We asked similar questions in regard to each subject area, and based on my analysis of 60 interviews (of principals, AP, LC, over four years), the focus of more than half of subject matter leader attention was on literacy goals. The exceptions to this are: the math coordinator talked exclusively about math, and one assistant principal spoke equally about math and literacy. Explanations for this may vary13, but the implication is clear: when positional leaders at Adams were asked subject

11 Based on how many we observed in between the fall of 1999 and the spring of 2003. 12 Math is one topic, of several, at these meetings. 13 Math and literacy are both the focus of district-wide high stakes testing, which may account for the small amount of time spent on science. In many cases, the leaders’ personal knowledge base of literacy is stronger—based on their personal history information and previous professional experiences. And finally, Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 19 of 52 matter specific questions about their practice, literacy gets more attention, more thought, and more air time than math.

Participation of leaders (division of labor). A third striking difference between math and literacy leadership at Adams School is seen through the discrepancies in the participation of positional and teacher leaders. The positional leaders at Adams participate more frequently and more actively in literacy activities than they do in math activities. There are more teacher leaders participating in literacy activities, and hence the overall participation in literacy far exceeds the leadership participation in math. In this section I examine the participation of leadership in math and literacy activities at Adams School. I will focus on meetings for this discussion, first by exploring the participation of leaders at subject specific meetings: which leaders attended, which leader(s) led the meeting, which leaders spoke. Because it is also important to look at what was said, not just how often or by whom things were said, the next section examines the rhetoric of the leadership. Positional leaders at Adams participate more in literacy meetings than they do math meetings in three ways: they attend more literacy meetings, they lead more literacy meetings, and they talk at more literacy meetings. This section will consider a close analysis of a sub set of the meeting data collected (seven). This is a representative segment of the data both in frequency of literacy vs. math meetings as well in the manner the data was collected.14

while there is a district emphasis on math and literacy, more expectations have been set out by district office in regards to literacy. 14 Literacy meetings happen with more frequency than math meetings in relation to this sample. This is based on formal lists of scheduled meetings, as well as sampled meetings. The math meetings happen less frequently, less formally, and are more difficult to track based primarily on classroom responsibilities held by the math leaders. The data were collected by attending meetings; some meetings were video taped, some were not. These meetings are a combination of both methods. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 20 of 52 Table 4. Who was in attendance (Year 01 and 02) Meeting Name and Subject Positional leaders present Teacher leaders present Matter Focus Literacy—Kick off the year All All meeting Literacy—Literacy committee Principal 1st grade teacher L Literacy Coordinator 3rd grade teacher L1 African-Am. Coordinator 5th grade teacher Assistant Principal 6th grade teacher 8th grade teacher Literacy—Breakfast club Principal 1st grade teacher M Assistant Principal 1st grade teacher L (Literacy coordinator 3rd grade teacher L1 organized the meeting but 5th grade teacher did not attend.) Literacy—Breakfast club All All Literacy—Breakfast club All 1st grade teacher L 3rd grade teacher L1 5th grade teacher 6th grade teacher 8th grade teacher Math—School Improvement Literacy coordinator All except 1st grade Planning Assistant Principal teacher L Math—Professional None 1st grade teacher A Development 3rd grade teacher B

Clearly, positional leaders make it a priority to attend literacy meetings. With the exception of one Breakfast Club meeting, most or all of the positional leaders are in attendance at literacy meetings. Conversely, they are rarely in attendance at the math meetings. When math is discussed at all faculty meetings—which happens occasionally— positional leaders are in attendance. A positional leader was in attendance in less than a third of the other math meetings we attended. The story is similar for the teacher leaders.

Adams School prides itself on empowering teachers. One result of this philosophy is that the meetings are not always run by positional leaders. In fact, our subset of meetings shows that teachers led more meetings than did positional leaders. Interestingly enough, the only meetings that the positional leaders ran are literacy

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 21 of 52 meetings. All of the math meetings we have collected data on were led by teacher leaders, with one exception. In the fall of 2000, the principal shared the math component at a back to school meeting.

Table 5. Who led the meeting (snap shot from years 01 and 02; division of labor and participants) (Positional leaders in bold, teacher leaders in italics)

Meeting Name and Subject Matter Focus Meeting leader(s)

Literacy—Kick off the year meeting Principal Literacy—Literacy committee Principal, Literacy Coordinator Literacy—Breakfast Club 1st Grade Teacher L Literacy—Breakfast Club 6th Grade Teacher Literacy—Breakfast Club 3rd Grade Teacher L Math—School Improvement Planning 1st Grade Teacher M Math—Professional Development 1st Grade Teacher M 3rd Grade Teacher L1

The level of participation is not only defined by who attends the meetings and who leads them but in the overall talk at the meetings as well. Appendix B shows the breakdown of exactly who talks at these meetings and how often. This complicates the picture somewhat. When the principal, the literacy coordinator, and the reading coordinator are in attendance, they speak. They tend to take a back seat in the Breakfast Club meetings, which is in line with the philosophy of those meetings: for teachers to talk. In fact, this same meeting, when it takes place for faculty in the upper building only, is called Teacher Talk instead of Breakfast Club. The positional leaders dominated the other literacy meetings. Conversely, there is little talk of positional leaders in the math meetings, if at all. (This is largely due to their absence from these meetings.) We observed two instances (across all meetings we observed) in which positional leaders attended a math meeting. The Literacy Coordinator attended a math SIP meeting (03.17.00), and in another instance, the Student Needs Director attended a math PD meeting. (01.18.01) These numbers reveal one layer of leadership practice. In addition, a significant message can be gleaned from looking at speech order within these meetings. The power

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 22 of 52 position in meetings is typically who starts and ends the meeting. The principal or literacy coordinator began four of the five literacy meetings and ended all of the literacy meetings. The literacy coordinator began one math meeting with some literacy details from a previous meeting; this meeting was ended by a comment from a teacher as the bell rang. The other math meeting was started and ended by a teacher leader. Again, we see positional leaders dominating the power positions in literacy meetings, while teachers dominate these same positions in math meetings. The patterns of frequency of speech are as follows: Overall, teachers talk about a third of the time, regardless of the subject matter of the meeting. (see Appendix B, last column). The positional leaders talk most of the time in the non-Breakfast Club literacy meetings. At Breakfast Club meetings around literacy matters, the distribution of talk is about equal between positional leaders, teacher leaders, and other teachers. At math meetings, teacher leaders dominate the talk. Based on these data we know that literacy meetings happen more often than math meetings, there are more positional leaders in attendance at literacy meetings than there are at meetings about mathematics, positional leaders tend to lead literacy meetings and not math meetings, and those positional leaders talk most of the time in literacy meetings (with the exception of Breakfast Club meetings). Talk participation helps us to gain an overall sense of the participation leaders have in leadership activities. But it doesn’t give us a complete picture. What do they say when they talk? How does this shape leadership practice, and what subject matter differences can we see in their speech events?

The rhetoric of leadership. Not only do positional leaders participate more in literacy meetings, they also participate differently. This serves as a fourth striking difference between math and literacy leadership practice at Adams School. In this section I push deeper into the participation of the individuals at Adams by exploring what it is they actually say about math and literacy. I will look at the nature of the speech of positional leaders, teacher leaders, and other individuals speaking at meetings in order to better understand the nature of their participation in math and literacy. (Appendix C shows the coding scheme used.)

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 23 of 52 Rhetoric of positional leadership in literacy. In the subset of meetings analyzed, the speech of positional leaders in literacy meetings at Adams centered around a variety of high level participation. They often provide a broader vision, to tie ideas together. At the end of a Breakfast Club meeting, the principal ends the meeting with the following statement:

I would like to say that when I taught, we always started out with a picture book and that always motivated them. I saw the connection right here—our strategy is to make connections: text to text, text to self, text to world. I also saw that we could use the verbal connections. We’ve been talking for many years about connecting the subjects. So we’ve been focusing on those readers that are struggling. Many of the middle school students are reluctant to read the harder novels, and we often turn them off on reading… (Principal, Breakfast Club Meeting, 11.14.00)

She takes the opportunity to tie the faculty’s discussion of picture books with the school’s work on making connections between subject areas, as well as having the students make connections in their own reading. While needs are often identified by people other than the formal leadership, formal leaders dominate the floor when it comes to offering strategies for change. Consider two examples from a literacy committee meeting:

I have a packet with lessons on teaching vocabulary—I’ll pass it around and if you want me to make you a copy, put your name on the green sticky note. (literacy coordinator, literacy meeting, 11.06.00).

Teacher modeling is important—only after the teacher models, then we move to the next phase, guided practice, scaffolding… Don’t just jump to the strategy. The framework is still: model, guided practice, independent then strategy. (principal, literacy meeting, 11.06.00).

The positional leaders do a lot of coordinating the talk at meetings, selecting who talks when, and determining how the meetings flow. Finally, they often offer their expertise (see above quote about how the principal used picture books in her own classroom), discuss resources,

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 24 of 52 Those of you who have the book, go to page 265, the appendix section. It is a cheat sheet, so to speak, for making connections. I’m not saying that this has to be it, but it gives a starting point if you just want an overview to use for the future. Appendix F, you’ll see it connects to the other sections… (principal, literacy meeting, 11.06.00).

One of the concerns that we had was not enough short stories. I asked Mrs. Smith (literacy assistant) to pull the Harcourt text booklets. (literacy coordinator, literacy meeting, 11.06.00). and encourage collaboration

Take ten minutes right now, as a grade level, and think about what you’re going to do. The problem is, we don’t expose them (the students) to enough non-fiction. It’s boring so they don’t get through it. We need to expose them to other genres. How will you make connections across content areas? How are we going to deal with reading across content areas? Begin to think about strategies. You will report back to the group in ten minutes. (principal, 11.06.00)15

Rhetoric of positional leadership in math. When they were in attendance, positional leaders rarely spoke in the math meetings. The two speech events made by a positional leader in a math meeting are below. In a math professional development meeting, the Student Needs Director makes a connection to literacy and a resource clarification. (See excerpt below.)

Student Needs Director: “In the Lighthouse Program for first grade, one of the books that we used was Goldilocks and the Three Squares. The co-author is Marilyn Burns. It was very cute. They enjoyed it.”

Later in the meeting she says: “A lot of the stuff they have goes down to pre-school.”

(Math In-Service for K-3 teachers, 01.18.01)

15 While I use excerpts from only two meetings, these are representative of the broader array of positional leader rhetoric in literacy meetings. I could sample from numerous meetings to show similar leadership behavior.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 25 of 52 The literacy coordinator was at a School Improvement Meeting for math. At this meeting, she speaks several times. (See excerpt below.)

Teacher1: Would it have to be primary and intermediate, or would it be as a whole staff? Math Leader 1: It would probably be divided. Teacher2: Are we going to use any of the half day sessions? Literacy coordinator: You have some on the calendar this year. How many Ms. (Math Leader 1)? Math Leader 1: I don’t know. Literacy Coordinator: They were on the calendar. Then it’s up to you to take the initiative.

(School Improvement Planning Meeting, 03.17.00)

Here we see the Literacy Coordinator attempting to get the Math Team to take ownership of the math work. The Literacy Coordinator made conscious efforts to stay out of the math work at Adams (personal communication, 2001). She was often pulled into the math work, and the above excerpt is an example of her attempt to give ownership back to the math leaders. As we have seen in these two excerpts, there are several instances in which positional leadership talks in math meetings. However, the talk is in no way parallel to their participation in literacy. Indeed, in the second example we see the positional leader’s push for non-involvement.

Teacher rhetoric: The speech of the teachers in literacy meetings centered around offering examples of what they do in the classroom. In math, their speech predominantly involves asking questions. The speech of the teacher leaders is a mix of the two. This makes sense because, as teachers with informal leadership roles, they walk the boundary between positional leader and classroom teacher. In both math and literacy, they often offered examples of what they do in their classrooms. In literacy, the teacher leaders also offer strategies, identify needs, offer broader vision comments, and discuss professional development ideas. In contrast, the teacher leaders in math spend most of their time talking about resources, clarifying, and inviting others to speak.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 26 of 52 This analysis of the speech at the meetings shows us dramatic differences between math and literacy. The biggest discrepancies are in the actions of the positional leaders. They rarely attend or speak at math meetings. In literacy meetings, they not only attend, but they open and close most meetings and they offer big picture ideas to tie the discussions together. The discrepancies in speech on the part of the teacher leaders reveals this prioritization of literacy as well. In literacy, teacher leaders are pushing the discussion to a higher level, while in math the informal leaders are mainly carrying out a lower level of activity: distributing resources and clarifying information for the other teachers. Another striking difference in the rhetoric is that the literacy meetings tend to involve more creative rhetoric from a more diverse population, while the participation in math meetings tend to be very limited—both in speakers and in scope. Because the positional leadership is more involved in literacy than math, math tends to get short changed. The lack of vision in the math meetings may, on first glimpse, be a result of lack of training in how to lead meetings on the part of the math teachers. However, I postulate that there is more at play than that. The math teachers have classroom duties that they clearly see as their first priorities. As the 8th grade teacher, and Math Team Leader says:

“…now this year it’s been hard to monitor. First of all, because they have a language arts coordinator that’s not in the classroom. So I’m suppose to be for math, but it’s really hard for me because I have a classroom and my first priority is my students. I know I have to be responsible for the school as well, excuse me, but I have to worry about them first. So it’s harder with me trying to keep and monitor the way that the language arts is monitoring because I’m in a classroom.” (02.20.02, 8th grade math teacher, interview)

This leaves them less time to do the work of the school and forces them into more of a day-to day maintenance position. Additionally, teacher leaders are not in attendance at district accountability meetings (as administrators are); thus working on a school vision is not at the top of their priority list. Most likely, they do not view this as part of their job. An analysis of the interview data also reveals this discrepancy between the level of discourse in literacy and math. The formal leaders tend to talk in more detail and about higher level elements about literacy than they do about math. For example, the

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 27 of 52 principal was asked about her goals for the school for math, science, and literacy in an interview, (01.31.0). In her responses about math and literacy, she talks about the participants as well as their roles in supporting new or struggling teachers. However, when she responds about literacy, her talk centers more around division of labor as well as a mediating artifact. She begins by talking about a school-wide literacy coordinator and “other teachers who’ve taken leadership roles at workshops and opening up their classrooms to assist other teachers…” She describes how they have built on that structure and identified grade level literacy coordinators who work closely with the literacy coordinator and also support new teachers. She then moves past the participants and talks about literacy work focused at the middle school level, (we’re) “looking at ways in which we could hopefully integrate literacy into more of a context area subjects. And you know so that’s something we really wanted to sort of firm up as we looked at our literacy framework, we felt we still needed another layer of leaders, you know, so to speak…” In her discourse around math, the principal again describes the key participants and their roles: But we have four teachers who went through a math leadership training program at the University of Chicago… it’s designed…to help to enhance the knowledge of the teachers and then to help them to develop strategies for working with other teachers.

She then describes how two of these leaders have helped a teacher get needed materials, and then the principal begins to talk about a teacher who is retiring. While the principal continues to discuss the literacy goals, the people involved, and the tasks at hand, she trails off on the math example and gets side tracked into a monologue about personnel challenges and teachers who aren’t performing up to par. Essentially, her literacy response remains content driven, focusing more on the literacy community and division of labor , while her math discussion soon becomes oriented only on participants. In this example we see a pattern that emerges across the interview data as a whole: the positional leaders talk at a higher level about literacy than they do mathematics.

Summary

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 28 of 52 The leadership activity at Adams School clearly reveals that literacy is a priority over math. This prioritization is revealed in the staffing decisions, the time they allocate to subject matter activities, the leaders’ participation at these activities, and in the rhetoric of the school leaders. In regards to participants, there are more positional leaders working on literacy than there are in math. The division of labor is also different: the positional leadership at Adams schedules more meetings around literacy. They attend these meetings more frequently, and always talk at these meetings. Their rhetoric around literacy reflects a comprehensive understanding of the goals for the school, and they work to bring that big picture to the forefront of these literacy meetings. On the other hand, they rarely attend the math meetings. In their absence, a cadre of math teachers has arisen to fill these leadership roles. Certain elements exist that explain why literacy is a priority of the leadership practice at Adams School. While the district emphasizes both math and literacy in their high stakes testing policies, they also place more emphasis on reading and writing improvement due to the significant struggles of students in these areas. Overall, reading and writing are seen as part of every subject area (“we are all reading teachers”) whereas mathematics is seen as a much more narrowly defined field.16 Most of the positional leaders are more comfortable with, and better versed in, the literacy domain. The backgrounds and personal histories attest to literacy as a strength, and people tend to work toward their strengths.

Experts and Learners

In addition to these differences across participants and division of labor in leadership practice at Adams, I noticed another interesting pattern emerging from the data. While some meetings looked very similar across math and literacy, other meetings were quite different. In order to explore this pattern, I categorized the subject matter meetings into three broad categories: Kick off the year meetings, School Improvement Planning meetings, and Professional Development meetings. The first two categories are

16 Literacy is discussed at all-school faculty meetings while math is usually discussed at math teacher only meetings. Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 29 of 52 self-explanatory; in this analysis, I call Professional Development meetings any meeting in which new ideas are shared and/or discussed.

Literacy: Teachers as experts: Consider two types of literacy Professional Development meetings: Breakfast Club and Literacy Committee meetings.

Breakfast Club meetings. When Dr. Williams originally came to Adams, one of the structures she put into place to support improvement in literacy, as well as get her faculty to talk to each other about teaching practice, was the Breakfast Club. Breakfast Club is a monthly gathering in which the teachers voluntarily arrive before school to discuss an article—typically about literacy teaching practice.

“…we engaged in Breakfast Club and Teacher Leader so that the teachers got more opportunity, greater opportunities to discuss with one another and also to find out what’s going on in each other’s classrooms. Because we didn’t know. Teaching can be a very closed situation, very, very closed,” (literacy coordinator, Tracy, 6.13.01).

The Principal buys breakfast for the teachers (out of her pocket), and the Literacy Coordinator typically identifies an article and a teacher to guide the discussion. While the Principal and Literacy Coordinator are in attendance at the Breakfast Clubs, they tend to sit back and allow the teachers to discuss literacy teaching practice among themselves. In order to further encourage teacher involvement, the Literacy Coordinator empowers teachers to take the lead at these meetings. She runs the first Breakfast Club of the year, and then she chooses critical players to act as moderator for the remaining meetings. For example, in November 2000, the article presented at the Breakfast Club was about using picture books in the classroom to get students interested and engaged in reading. Because the Literacy Coordinator was getting resistance from the upper grade teachers—who claimed this strategy worked for the younger grades but did not work with older kids (a typical issue at Adams: the divide between the lower and upper grades)—the Literacy Coordinator chose a sixth grade teacher to lead the discussion. In having a middle school teacher lead this meeting, and talk about her success with this

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 30 of 52 strategy in her own classroom, more middle school teachers left the meeting willing to try it out in their classroom. The talk at these breakfast club meetings is unique. A true give and take occurs at these meetings, and the positional leaders are unusually quiet. The teachers take over and collaborate around the ideas offered in the article. The lead teacher offers her insight, questions, and connections to personal practice, and from there the other teachers join the discussion. The principal and the literacy coordinator take this back seat approach because they want the teachers to be involved, but also because they want the teachers to do the work of making sense of the ideas and thus be inclined to internalize them and change their practice. Literacy Committee Meetings: Another typical literacy Professional Development meeting is the Literacy Committee meeting. Consider the following excerpt from a literacy committee meeting November 2000.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 31 of 52 1. Principal: we’re going to quickly move through the agenda… we would like to focus in, in 2. particular, on grades 2-8 although we know there are some first grade teachers here that have 3. things to contribute. We’d like to look at the Ten Week assessment results, then we will move 4. into Chapter 6 of the book “Strategies that Work.” Some of you have done successful things 5. so we will have time for sharing. We’ve found that the things we learn best we learn through 6. sharing. We are ensuring we move in the right direction; ensure that the students are successful 7. on that ten week assessment. Ms. (Literacy Coordinator), will present the ten week assessment 8. results.” 9. Literacy Coordinator: First I would like to say congratulations to grade levels—all grade 10. levels made some improvements from the five week assessment to the ten week assessment 11. which is a reflection of your time and commitment to getting students to learn…Third through 12. fifth: need to work on abilities to write descriptive words… probably lacking in vocabulary, 13. ability to pick out details from the story. They did a good job identifying the problem and 14. solution of the story…which leads me to middle school: problem and solution didn’t 15. always match…This is truly a concern. They had a little trouble determining the important 16. information in the story. The questions missed were mostly vocabulary questions… I have 17. a packet with lessons on teaching vocabulary—I’ll pass it around and if you want me to make 18. you a copy, put your name on the green sticky note… 19. (When the Literacy Coordinator finishes up Principal indicates to AAHC, who takes the floor.) 20. African-American Heritage Coordinator: “Real quick, I did this real quick, Ms. (LC) 21. asked me to do Chapter 6 and I did it quickly… (hands out a packet she put together.) 22. “The whole chapter deals with three ways to make connections.” 23. (she goes through the handout)“ 24. Get sticky notes and cut them in half (for students to use as they annotate the text)…” 25. Teacher1: “Get them at Sam’s—I just did. They’re cheaper there.” 26. AAHC: (Gives an example from her life to apply these strategies.) 27. Teacher2: “Can I give an example? (We read) Shiloh—not the novel, just part of it. She 28. (student in my class) knows how the dog felt. Kicks it just like Shiloh got kicked. (Example 29. of student whose parent abuses their dog.) Sounder—both stories involve characters with dogs. I 30. brought in the article from the Sun Times about the dog fighting. They didn’t know an abused 31. animal but it’s in the world—not a dog fight but still a dog being mistreated.” 32. AAHC: “Expose them to as many different genres. Last thing…the children must know 33. which connection you’re making.” 34. Teacher3: “Excuse me, I don’t have the sheet with the graphic.” 35. AAHC: “The last chapter talks about how important it is when children are actually able to relate 36. to the text. If you haven’t started, start…Get your little snippets; they’ll be your best friend.” 37. Teacher4: “Last year we had ____ which asked for prior knowledge. I’ll make copies for the 38. different grades. It worked well.” 39. Teacher5: “We need to make sure they understand what it means to connect. What we mean 40. by these words.” 41. Principal: Teacher modeling. Only after the teacher models, then we move to the next phase. 42. Guided practice, scaffolding, finally independent. (The) application of strategy in independent 43. situations. Don’t just jump to the strategy. The framework is still: Model, guided practice, 44. independent, then strategy.” 45. Teacher1: “I can give an example of that. I tell the kids, “Take out a piece of paper, I’m going 46. to read aloud. If you have questions, responses, write them down. I know you (motions to 47. LC who is nodding her head) told us to do this and of course you are absolutely right…” 48. Literacy Coordinator: Talk about a meta-cognitive process. That’s it when you hear that phrase. . (Fieldnotes, 11.06.00) Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 32 of 52 This meeting is another example of the active interplay of teachers around literacy. Positional leaders participate heavily in this meeting. The Principal starts the meeting and sets the agenda (lines 1-8). The Literacy Coordinator reports on results of Five Week Assessment and offers resources to support weaknesses (lines 9-18). The African-American Heritage Coordinator hands out a framework she has created from the book Strategies that Work (a text that the Principal and the Literacy Coordinator purchased for all teachers) (lines 20-24). The chapter is specifically about strategies for how to get students to make connections when reading. From this point, the teachers participate in the conversation. Two teachers offer resources to the other teachers: Teacher1, line 25 and Teacher4, lines 37-38.. Another teacher jumps in with an example from her classroom practice that connects with the framework presented (Teacher2, lines 27-32). In participating in this way, this fifth grade teacher enables other teachers to hear a strategy for doing this in the classroom. Teacher5 identifies a need that they have to address with their students (lines 39-40). In this way, she pushes the conversation to a higher level, presenting a real need the school, as a whole, must address. This is a small sample, but it represents the kind of collaboration and sense-making that commonly takes place at literacy meetings. The pattern across most of the Professional Development meetings around literacy involve this collaborative style. In fact, the percentage of speech between leaders and followers is more even in literacy professional development meetings than any other meeting type. In fact, on average, teachers talk more than leaders at these meetings. (get figure here) Teachers are empowered and encouraged to share their expertise, and they do. They consistently talk about their classroom practice and how it connects to the theory at hand.

Math: Teachers as learners Professional Development meetings in math fall into two categories: informational sessions and hands-on activity sessions. Both types of math meeting are always led by classroom teachers, one of the four that constitute the Math Team.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 33 of 52 The informational meetings are strikingly similar to the kick off the year meetings. The leaders tell the teachers what is expected of them, and the teachers ask questions. No discussion of ideas or sharing classroom practice occurs, with the exception of the lead teachers talking about their own classroom practice in relation to what they are teaching. Here, the teachers function in an empty vessel mode—they are “filled up” with teaching strategies and content offered by the leaders. Consider one math professional development meeting that is representative of mathematics meetings at Adams. This meeting is a meeting for K-3 math teachers. The meeting is led by two teachers (a first grade teacher and a third grade teacher) from the Math Team who act as Math Leader #1 and Math Leader #2. Typical of mathematics leadership activities at Adams, there is only one positional leader present at this meeting (the Student Needs Director). Math Leader #1 and Math Leader #2 provide each teacher a folder with pre-packaged activities they can use directly in their classrooms. The breakdown of the meeting is as follows: Table 6. Math Professional Development Meeting (Year 02) Activity Person involved Introduction and welcome Math Leader #1 Explanation of various math resources Math Leaders #1 and #2 Questions about the resources Teacher Sharing of classroom practice Math Leaders #1 and #2 Sharing of NCTM standards Math Leader #1 Sharing of computer activties for classroom Math Leader #2 Clarification questions Various teachers Invitation to share Math Leader #1 Explanation of packet with examples of Math Leaders # 1 and #2 classroom practice

The leaders dominate the talk. In this meeting, the math leaders invite the teachers into the conversation, but the teachers do not engage significantly. See the following excerpt from the math meeting (01.18.01): Roughly half way through the meeting, when they have gotten very little participation and even some silence when asked specific questions related to the activities they share, one leader pauses and says: Leader #1: Any questions, comments, suggestions? Teacher1: What’s a reflector?

And again, later in the meeting: Case study chapter jz Leader #1: Questions, comments, suggestions? We love suggestions? 4/28/04 Page 34 of 52 Silence. This interplay between leaders and followers is dramatically different from the collaboration we see in literacy. In literacy, teachers are eager to share; in math, they sit and listen, asking the occasional clarifying question. This math meeting is one directional. The leaders tell the teachers what they can teach, and the teachers listen quietly and rarely interact. The teacher interactions are limited to asking clarification questions , or to simply not participating at all. In this way, the teachers take on a passive learner role. In other professional development sessions around math, we see a slightly different activity. The math leader or leaders run the teachers through a hands-on activity that they learned through their math course at the local university (give two dates here). In these cases, the followers act as learners, or students, carrying out the math task and learning the material as they go. Take for example another K-3 meeting (10.28.02). Math Leader #1 and Math Leader #3 give the teachers a folder with several activities. The meeting is formed around three activities the leaders did at a workshop. The first is a warm up activity in which the teachers have to guess the number on their back, asking only yes and no questions of their colleagues. The second activity has the teachers writing directions about a picture they have in front of them and then they give their partner directions to draw this same picture. In the final exercise, the math leaders have the teachers trying to solve a tangram puzzle. The teachers are much more engaged in this math meeting then we see in other meetings. This engagement, however, is limited to the activity of doing the math. They do not discuss the mathematical concepts, nor do they share their classroom practice in connection with these ideas as we see in the literacy meeting example. The sense-making we see in the literacy meetings is not present at these math meetings. The math leaders run through a math exercise without engaging them in a discussion around what this means for their teaching practice. Again, we see the teachers acting as learners. They are there to learn the activities they can use, and the math involved if need be, but they are not an active part of the sense-making process.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 35 of 52 How tools impact practice. An examination of tools used helps to amplify this difference between participation in literacy and math meetings. While some tools are consistent between both practices (Five Week Assessment data, for example), some tools vary dramatically. Literacy leaders bring tools—like frameworks from book chapters and articles about teaching practice—and the exercise in the meeting is to make sense of the tool. The teachers then take that sense-making back to their own teaching practice, and create their own lessons. In contrast, the math leaders often bring pre-packaged tools to the math teachers. They have removed the sense-making step and have simply offered concrete ways for the math teachers to teach in their classrooms. The form of the tool drives the meeting activity, and consequently we see differences in the leadership practice across the math and literacy communities.

Sense-making tools. The tool leadership uses in Breakfast Club meetings is the article up for discussion. This tool acts as an object that spans the boundary between the positional leaders (the article is selected by the Literacy Coordinator, based on her perceived need for professional development) and the teachers (the ones who read and make sense of the article, applying the ideas to their own classroom practice) (Wenger, 1999). In the literacy committee meeting we considered, the tool brought to the table is a framework from a chapter of a book about teaching literacy that the teachers all own. Conversely, in math the tools do not require any sense-making. They are pre-packaged and ready to implement in the classroom. This is true about the folders given at the hands-on meetings, as well as the actual activities the teachers are exposed to. Another example of this ‘pre-packaged’ math tool is the time line the Math Team gave to the math teachers in the fall of Year 03. In this meeting, the math leaders present the instructional focus for the math teachers. In response to declining test scores in mathematics, the math team met over the summer to conduct an item-analysis of the ISAT. They created a document that outlined, for every grade, which math concepts were on the test and with what frequency. Using the text-book as their guide, the math team then mapped out the entire year for every grade, establishing a time table for chapter completion and assessment dates. This document drove the instruction and

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 36 of 52 assessment schedule for the whole school in mathematics. While many teachers struggled within the timeframe laid out, this became a focal point for mathematics teaching in the building.

This ties back into the lack of big picture elements that the first section of my analysis reveals about math. The math leaders, as teachers, have strengths. They provide good, useful resources; they talk about their own practice; they offer model lessons. They do not have the time, and perhaps even the relevant school and district information, to offer big picture vision. Thus, the need for positional leaders to take charge of certain components of mathematics leadership practice becomes highlighted in the case of this school.

While never explicitly stated by any member of the faculty at Adams, my analysis of leadership activity reveals a distinct difference in leadership practice at Adams: teachers are able to collaborate and problem solve around literacy but in mathematics that culture does not exist. An exploration of the tools that leaders use in their leadership activity makes this distinction more explicit.

Conclusions and future work In the case of Adams, the leadership activity around math and literacy varies across ways in which literacy is prioritized, as well as ways in which leaders and followers interact—as shaped by tools. The activity systems of math and literacy, at this point in time at this particular school, vary dramatically. From this discussion, we can see that some of the mediating artifacts in literacy are different from the ones that exist in math. In math they are prescriptive and require little to no teacher input or thought. Conversely, the artifacts in literacy invite the teachers to participate in a collaborative and more sophisticated manner. There are more participants (positional leaders as well as teachers) in literacy than there are in math, and they speak more often in literacy activities. The division of labor is different as well. Based on preliminary analysis, the rules and norms vary across math and literacy as well; this requires more consideration, as does the different role mediating artifacts play across subject matter. Exploring this prioritization, and this contrast between followers as experts vs. learners, offers us a better understanding of leadership practice. At Adams, the ways that leaders make decisions about hiring priorities, allocate time, participate in leadership

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 37 of 52 activities, and talk about curricular areas are all subject matter specific. Even the ways that followers participate in subject matter activities vary across math and literacy. It is no longer enough to state that leaders lead instruction. They specifically lead instruction differently in different domains, as this case study of Adams School reveals. Leaders will always make priorities in their practice; this is the nature of managing their work. By breaking leadership practice into these components, we can then pay attention to what priorities are made, and how these impact a school. Future work should extend beyond these components of leadership activity, as we try to better understand the practice of leadership. In addition, I plan to explore the changes in these subject matter differences over time. The shift in positional leaders at Adams provides me with an interesting opportunity to watch these communities of practice shift over time. By looking at how the communities of practice around math and literacy are formed at Adams, and how they change, I can learn more about the nuances of leadership and continue to offer insight into the very nature of leadership practice. More work is also needed in a more in-depth study of the roles that specific leaders and followers play, and the dynamic element within those roles. We know a lot about leadership. But we still do not know a lot about what exactly leaders do. A better understanding of the practice of school leadership around subject matter differences can help as schools continue working to successfully reform their instructional practice.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 38 of 52 References Anyon, J. (1981) Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1) 3-42.

Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schon. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. (1991). “Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation.” Organizational Science, 2(1).

Cole, Michael. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Duranti, Alessandro. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eccles, Robert G., and Nitin Nohria. (1992). Beyond the hype: Rediscovering the essence of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Elmore, Richard F., Penelope L. Peterson, and Sarah J. McCarthey (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Engestrom, Yrjo. (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. From Perspectives on activity theory, edited by Yrjo Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, Raija-Leena Punamäki. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Yrjo. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. From Perspectives on activity theory, edited by Yrjo Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, Raija-Leena Punamäki. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, R. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 119-161. New York: MacMillan.

Firestone, William A. (1989): “Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2) 151-165.

Firestone, William A. (1996). Leadership roles or functions? In International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (Vol. 2) edited by K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 395-418.

Firestone, William A & H. Dickinson Corbett. (1988). “Organizational change.” In

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 39 of 52 Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, edited by N. Boyan. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Geerz, C. (1973). Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C. Geertz (ed.). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books.

Hallinger, Phillip, and Charles Hausman. (1987). “From Atilla the Hun to Mary had a little lamb: Principal role ambiguity in restructured schools” in Instructional Leadership: Concepts, issues and controversies, edited by W. Greenfield. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.

Hargraves, A.

Heller, Marjorie F., and William A. Firestone . (1995). “Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools.” Elementary School Journal, 96

Hutchins, Edwin. (1995). “How a cockpit remembers its speed.” Cognitive Science, v19

Hutchins, Edwin. (1990). “The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lave, Jean. (1988). “Situating learning in communities of practice.” from L. Resnick, S. Levine & L. Teasley, Perspectives of socially shared cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

McLauglin, Milbrey., and Joan E. Talbert. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Miles, Matthew and A. Michael Huberman. (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Neuman, Mary. Cracking the mathematics and science barrier: Principles for principals. NASSP Bulletin.

Neuman, Mary. (2001) The challenges to leadership: Focusing on student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan. June.

Neuman, Mary, and Simmons, Walter. (2000) Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan. September.

Orr, (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Collection on Technology and Work.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 40 of 52 Orr, In Brown and Duguid, 1991.

Pea, Roy D. (1993). “Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education.” In Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations edited by G. Salomon, chapter 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational researcher, 22(2), 24-30.

Purkey, Stewart C., and Marshall S. Smith. (1983). “Effective schools: A review.” Elementary School Journal, 83(4): 427-452.

Resnick, Lauren. (1991). “Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice.” In Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Edited by L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA) 1991.

Rogoff, Barbara. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salomon, Gavriel. “No distribution without individual cognition: A distributed interactionist view.” In Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. G. Salomon, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Shulman, J. H. (ed). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Siskin, Leslie Santee. (1991). “Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools.” Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2) (1991).

Siskin, Leslie Santee. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Washington, D. C.: The Falmer Press.

Smylie, Mark A. and Jack W. Denny. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3): 235-259.

Spillane, James P. (2002) Investigating School Leadership Practice: What’s Situativity Theory got to Offer? Prepared for presentation at ISCRAT, Amsterdam, June 2002.

Spillane, James P., Rich Halverson, & John B. Diamond. (2001). "Investigating School

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 41 of 52 Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective." Educational Researcher, 30(3):23-28, 2001.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of School Leadership Practice: Implications of a Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies.

Spillane, J. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, Diamond, & Jita, 2000

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Sherer, J. Z., Coldren, A. F. (in press) Distributing leadership. In Coles, M & Southworth (eds.), Developing leadership: creating the schools of tomorrow.

Spillane, J. & Jennings. (1996) Aligned Instructional Policy and Ambitious Pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.

Stodolsky, Susan. (1988). The subject matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stodolsky, Susan, and Grossman, Pamela Lynn. (1995). “The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: an analysis of five academic subjects.” American Educational Research Journal, 32(2): 227-249.

Strauss, Anslem & Corbin, Juliet. (1997). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.

Weick, Karl E. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Wenger, Etienne. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, Identity. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).

White, R. K., and Lippet, R. O. (1960). Autocracy and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Yin, Robert. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 42 of 52 Appendix A: Coding scheme for analysis of meeting data This work was heavily influenced by Heller and Firestone (1995) and Firestone and Corbett (1988)

Meeting label: Type of meeting: Math and/or Literacy or Other (specify):

Who is at the meeting, who speaks, and how many times: Who Speaks? How many times Formal Leaders (administrators)

Teachers

Other

The How (how the talk happens) Talk Coordination Person Point Person 1 Point Person 2 First Word Introduce Point Person Ending Voice Last Word Oz

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 43 of 52 Reporting Academic Person # of times What they say Overlay

Self Classroom Author Announcer Grade level School Author Announcer Outside Announcer Dictate Non- Person # of times What they say Academic Overlay Classroom Author Announcer School Author Announcer

Outside Dictate Announcer

Other "how" Person # of times What they say Clarification Rephrases/Repeats for emphasis Asks for help Offers help in response to request (see above)

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 44 of 52 Professional community/ collegiality Person # of What they said times Invites others Team player Collaboration Expertise Sets tone Goes outside of role Referencing others Disagree with something that is said

People Person and # What they said Maintenance of times Provide recognition Role assignment Blame Check in Handles disturbances Praise Encouragement

Other stuff you notice about how the talk happens:

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 45 of 52 The What (what they talk about)

Resources Academic Person Number of What they said Overlay times

Obtaining resources Distributing resources Reminding use of resources Using resource Shortcoming in resource Sharing new resource Teaching use of resource

Non-academic overlay

Obtaining Distributing Reminding use of Using resource

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 46 of 52 Broader Vision Academic Person Number What they said Overlay of times Making connections Fits to standard operating procedures Big picture Need Goal Strategy Sets expectations Way it is

Non- Person Number What they said Academic of times Overlay Making connections Fits to standard operating procedures Big picture Need Goal Strategy Sets expectations Way it is

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 47 of 52 The What (continued)

Monitoring Improvement Effort Academic Overlay Person # of What they said times Testing Iowa test (ITBS) (city) ISAT (state) 5 wk assessments Generic use of "test" Need Goal Teaching Strategy Strategy Sets expectations Challenge Change

Non- Person # of What they said Academic times Overlay Need Goal Teaching Strategy Strategy Sets expectations Challenge Change

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 48 of 52 Appendix B: Who spoke at the meeting and how often (snap shot from Year 01, 02) (Positional leaders in bold, Teacher leaders in italics, other individuals in regular text.) Meeting Name and Who speaks Number of turns Percentage Subject Matter of talk Focus Kick off the year Dr. Williams 45 FL—100 meeting—L Ms. Tracey 5 IL—0 Comment made by T—0 Ms. Richards Literacy Dr. 18 FL—56 committee—L Williams 19 IL—11 Ms. Tracey 5 T—33 Ms. Baize 1 Ms. Ogden 2 Ms. Walthers 2 Ms. Grovenor 3 Ms. Holmes 25 13 teachers Breakfast club—L Ms. James 7 FL—100 8 Teachers 16 IL—0 Dr. Williams 1 T—0 Breakfast club—L Dr. 4 FL—36 Williams 3 IL—29 Ms. Tracey 3 T—36 Ms. Baize 6 Ms. Holmes 1 Ms. James 1 Ms. Grovenor 10 10 teachers Breakfast club—L Dr. 6 FL—22 Williams 4 IL—47 Ms. 16 T—31 Tracey 2 Ms. Grovenor 1 Ms. Brown 1 Ms. Walthers 1 Ms. Ogden 14 Ms. Holmes 9 teachers School Ms. 2 (+ 3 around lit. document) FL—5 Improvement Tracey 12 IL—76 Planning—M Ms. Brown 4 T—19 Ms. Grovenor 6 Ms. Walthers 1 Ms. Holmes 4 Ms. Ogden 1

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 49 of 52 Ms. Sunny 7 6 teachers Professional Ms. Brown 21 FL—0 Development—M Ms. Sunny 25 IL—70 5 teachers 20 T—30

Case study chapter jz 4/28/04 Page 50 of 52