Leadership forLasting Reform

Principals and teachers tratwl through three phases as their schoolsbuild high leadership capacity that sustains improvement.

Anumber of years ago. as Ianticipated my fourth andfinal year as principal of SanJose Middle School inNovato, California, vice prin-

cipal Joe! Montero and I discussed ourconcern about the sustainabiiity of thegood work that members of the schoolcommunity had done together. Teacherleadership in the school was strong—but was it strong enough tt) survive amajor change in administration?

To ease the transition, Joel and Idecided to switch many of our roles.

Linda Lambert

During that school year, I found <iut howdifficult the job of vice principal was.And Joel prepared himself magnificentlyfor the principalship that he assumed thefollowing September. For the next 13years, every pdiicipal at San Jose MiddleSchool came from within the school. SanJose continues to be at the forefront ofschool improvement today.

In the meantime, as I moved on toother administrative roles, the challengeof sustainabilit}' continued to intrigueme- What had been the pathway tosustainable school excellence at San

Jose? Did other successful schoolsfollow the same pathway? Working withthousands of school leaders over theyears as an ijistnictor, coach, advisor,and presenter, I have encountered thesame question again and again: Onceyou create a great school, how do youmaijitain a close approximation of thathigh quality for the long term?

Study of High LeadershipCapacity SchoolsSome coUeagues and I recently set outto discover how 15 schools made the

62 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/FEURIIARY 2005

journey toward hi^b leadershipcapacity, which we dcfint'tl as broad-based, skillful participation in the workof leadership.' I had worked personallywith some ofthe schools in the study;other schools were nominated bycolleagues working with initiatives thatemphasized the characteristics of highleadership capacity schools. We gath-ered information for the study byvisiting thc schools and intemewingprincipals and teachers. Through a setof open-ended questions, we invitedparticipants to describe the leadershipcapacity of their schools, includingobstacles and factors affecting sustain-abilit>. In two daylong conversations,our group of researchers identifiedpattems. made inferences, and drewconclusions about what promotes highleadership capacity.

The participating schools werelocated in North Carolina, Ohio,.Missouri, Kansas, Texas. (California,Washington, and Alberta. Canada. Theyincluded 3 high schools, 1 junior highschool, and 11 elementary* schools. Allshared key elements related to leader-ship capacity. At each schotil, a systemof shared governance and distributedleadership supported a dynamic leader-ship culture built around a vision-driven, student-focused conceptual

framework for school improvement.Student performance data served as theheart of each school's inquiry approachto school improvement. Each schoolhad design features—structures,processes, and roles—that promotedleadership capacity.

Most ofthe schools in the study wereurban and high-poverty. One-third ofthem had consistently been high-performing schools and continued toshow improvement; two-thirds hadtransformed themselves from low-performing schools to successfulschools in the last few years. Some hadhit bottom and had nowhere to go butup. For example, in 1999. VantageElementary' earned 315—one ofthelowest ratings in California—on thestate s Academic Pertbrmance Index

Once you create a

great school, how do

you maintain a close

approximation of that

high quality for the

long term?

(API), a numeric scale that defines aschool s performance level on the basisof statewide testing results. Even theschool's mascot—a trout—was unin-spiring. Despite the fact that the nearbycreek had hosted an occasional troutdecades ago, this mascot evoked littleschool pride. By 2002, however.Vantage Elementary' boasted signifi-cantly higlier student performance,having raised its API to 447. Teacherprofessionalism had improved, and thetrout mascot had been replaced by abold graphic that symbolized theschool's renewed hope and pride.

In each of the 15 schools we studied,the principal played a major role inbuilding shared leadership and a profes-

sional culture. As one principalcommented,

I'm trying to lead for whenever I maynot be here any longer—by buildingboth the capacity' of systems throughschool design choices and people s

acit}̂ for leadership.

Evolving Phasesof School ImprovementOf course, the principals in the studyschools differed in their personalitiesand in their management strengths andweaknesses. But all the principalsshared certain characteristics thatcontributed to their schools' evolvingculture of leadership, including

• Understanding of self and clarity ofvalues;

• A strong belief in eqtiity and thedemocratic process;

• Strategic thought abotjt the evolu-tion of school improvement;

• A vulnerable persona;• Knowledge of the work of teaching

and leaming; and• The ability to develop capacity' in

colleagues and in the organization.These characteristics played out

differently dtiring three major phases ofdevelopment that we defined as instruc-tive, transitional, and high capacity.The three phases did not end and beginwith clean borders; on the contrary,many behaviors emerged, dissolved, andreappeared as the struggle to build lead-ership capacity progressed.

The Instructive PhaseSchool improvement begins with aperiod of organization as the schoolinitiates new collaborative processesthat relate to norms, teams, vision, useof data, shared expectations, and waysof working together. In the instmctivephase, the principals roles are to insiston attention to results, start conversa-tions, solve difficult problems, challengeassumptions, confront incompetence,focus work, establish strtictures andprocesses that engage colleagues, teachabout new practices, and articulatebeliefs that eventually get woven intothe fabric of the school.

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CHRRICUHIM DEVELOPMENT 63

The principal of Kinder ElementarySchool jump-started change by gath-ering teachers together on a liorrowedhouseboat to develop a school vision towhich they could all commit AtJohnson Junior High School, the prin-cipal helped establish a steeringcommittee and cadres to involvec*ver>onc in the process of Icadenilup.

Principals in the study reported thatthey encountered some patterns ofteacher resistance, disengagement, anddependence during this stage. Morethan one- principal struggled with a staffmessage of Y'ou just tell us your visionfor the school, and we'll act t>n it.'

Most of the principals displa>ed"strength" as a purposeful strategyduring this phase. Althoughthey believed that theyneeded to demonstrateassertive leadership to jum|>start the process of movingout oflow-performancestatus, they also understoodthat this assertive leadershipwas a temporary stage inbuilding schoolwide leader-ship capacity.

Tbe Transitional PbaseDuring the transitionalphase, the principal's role isto graLluaily let go. releasingsome authority and controlwhile providing continued.support and coaching asteachers take on moreresponsibility. Teachersoften feel tempted toabandon the effort at thispoint—ii seems too hard.The principal providessupport by continuing theconversations, keeping ahand in the process (ratherthan accepting quick fixes),coaching, and problem-solving within an atmo-sphere of trust and safety. Tonavigate this ph:i.se success-fully, the principal mustengage in a strategic thoughtprocess, understanding

where the school culture is going andwhen to ptill back as teachers emerge asleaders.

In the study schools, teachersemerged as leaders at varying rates.Many were nn>rc than read) to thinkdifferently about their work and expandtheir identities to incorporate teacherleadership; otliers moved morecautiously and deliberately. Because ofthe wide nuige of teachers develop-ment a.s leaders, principals often foundthe transitional phase to be the mostchallenging. Some teachers still clung totheir dependent behaviors, expectingthe principal to continue to play aninstnictive role; other teachers wereawakening as more independent profes-

Principal*s Role in HighLeadership Capacity Schools

Displays the following personal attributesand behaviors:

m Learns continually.• Thinks strategically.• Is value- and vision-driven,• Continues and expands behaviors initiated in earlierphases.

Participates with other members of the community to

• Share concerns and issues.• Share decisions,• Monitor and implement shared vision.• Engage in reflective practices (reflection/inquiry/dialogue/action).• Monitor norms and take self-corrective action,• Think strategically,• Build a culture of interdependency.• Self-organize.• Diversify and blend roles.• Establish criteria for self-accountability,• Share authority and responsibility (dependent on expertiseand interest rather than on role),• Plan for enculturation of new staff and successor.

Uses his or her formal authority to

• Implement community decisions,• Mediate political pressures,• Work with less-than-competent staff.• Work with legal and reform challenges.

sionals; and still others had advanced tothe high leadership capacity stage anddisplayed selt-organizing behaviors.

The transitional phase was a time ofepiphanies for lioth principals andteachers in our study. The principal ofCaravell High School noted that herstrategy of strengtli may have beengetting in the way of others' growth. Asa result of this insight, she pulled back,encouraging more collaboration andpeer conversations to diminish thestaffs reliance on formal authorit)'.Vtiien the Oilifomia State Departmentof Education identified (^aravell as a low-performing schtM)!. a dramatic turningpoint (Kcurred. The principal laid outthe harsh reality of the school's low-

pertbmiing status at a faculty-meeting and declared. "I don tknow what to do. We'll haveto figure this otit together."

Tliey did. Teachers andparents joined action teams toexamine student perlbmiancedata and student work,conducted action research todiscover new data, developeda cadre of peer coaches, andexpanded their staff develop-ment program. Teachers aban-doned their isolated practiceb> turning to one another.

Tlie willingness of the prin-cipal to be vulnerable was acrucial motivator during thetransitional phase. Whenteachers became aware thatthe principal didn't claim tohave all the answers, theyactively increased theirparticipation.

Study principals providedencouragement to teachersduring this phase throughboth direct and subtleapproaches. The principal of(iarsi>n Kiementar\' Schoolframed the need to addressthe achievement gap moreaggressively;

Just remt-nilxT that achange in practice orinstruction will always

64 EUl'CATIO.N.AL LEADfRSHIP/FEBBl ARY 2 0 0 ?

coniL- from the oiitsicif it you don'tcreate il from your own actionresearch.

The principals declaration of theconsequences of inaction clarified thereality ot the situation for teachers andenci)urjjied ihem to act. Together, prin-cipal anti teachers formed Peer Enc|uir>Projiraiii (PKP) teams. These teams usedconstructivist conversations to posequestions about grotips of students wholagged behind, to locate and t)o;anizedata, and to design new practices. 'ITieirconversations tot>k place in tacultymeetings as well as in separateh orga-nized team nieetitigs.

One ofthe must challenging aspectsof the transitional phase is the need tobreak through dependencies. In adependent culture, teachers believe thatthey need to ask the principal's pennis-sion for most actions—and they cometo expect the principal to make thedecisions and take care of them. Duringthe transitional phase, principals needto hatid decisions and problem solvingback to the teachers, coaching andleading for teacher efficacy whilerefusing to hold tight to authority andpower.

The principal of Toledo Elernentar\"School asked teachers to decide what (odo when the vice principal position waseliminated. They resolved the issue byvoluntarily dividing the vice principal'stasks among themselves. Alter RiversideElementary staff had evolved to a highlevel of self-responsibility, theysuggested to the district that they coulddo fine without a principal—and the>'did. And at Verde Elementars. the prin-cipal willitigly relinquished responsi-bility for convening meetings and coor-dinating tasks when the teachers cameto her and said. "We think it is time foryou to let go."

Tfje Hif>h LeadershipCapacity PhaseDuring the high leadership capacit>^phase, the school encourages theteachers to play more prominent leader-ship roles. The principal takes a lowerprofile and foeuses on facilitation and

coparticipation rather than dominance.Teachers begin to initiate actions, takeresponsibility, discover time for jointefforts, and identity caicial questionsabout student learning.

Strikingly, principals and teachersoften become more alike than differentduring this phase. A leveling of relatioti-ships occurs as reciprocitj' developsbetween the principal and the teachers.

When teachers became

aware that the principal

didn't claim to have all the

answers, they actively

increased their

participation.

Teachers find their voices, grow confi-dent in their beliefs, and become moreopen to feedback. The principal nolonger needs to convene or mediate theconversations, frame the problems, orehallenge assumptions alone. Principaland teachers begin to share the samee(»ncems and work together towardtheir goals.

For example, teachers and adminis-trators at Poe High .School developeilleadership rubrics to guide their work.And Ri\erside l:lementar\- teachersdeveloped a set of agreements thatguided their shared leadership work:(1) No one is above the other; (2) Weare teachers first; (5) We are a commu-nity'; and (4) We must learn together.

Teachers Take On LeadershipAn intriguing criterion for deciilingwhether a school has reached the highleadership capacity phase may be itsabi!rt\' to exist and thrive without a prin-cipal, whether or not it choo.ses to doso. Of the 1S study scho(jls, 2 hadprogre.s.sed to the point where theyoperated with a part-time principal, and1 operated without any princip;U.

Is it desirable to operate without aperson in a full-time, formal role as prin-cipal? It depends. There arc manyrea.son.s for having a principal. Oneperson can more easily take responsi-bility for convening and facilitatingctHiversations. securing focus, moni-toring progress. wi)rking throughpersonnel-related or legal difficulties,working with the district, and handlingpolitical pre.ssures. In spite of the prob-lems that may arise from giving so muchresp<jnsibilit\' t<) one person, principalscontinue to be the key tt) selnHtlimprovement. Unless a school hasalread) developed high leadershipcapacity, teacher behavior is often afunction of principal behavior.

Schools that have developed highleadersliip capacit)' take on a differentcharacter, however. Even If ihe prin-cipal is reassigned while the school isvStill in the transitional phase—whiehoften happens—staff commitment cansurvive the change and even energizethe new principal. Teachers find leader-ship in one another, assigning bothcredibility and authotity to their peers.'fliey tap into mutual authority byexpecting others to identify problemsand bring them to the group.

When principals lead for "wheneverthey will not be there." as most of theprincipals in our study did. teachersshare responsibility for the effective-ness ofthe school. Broad-based,skillful participation in the work ofleadership contributes to lastingschool improvement that is all toorare. B!

'For a more detailed discussion ofthestudy, see Lusting Lcadersbifr. A Study ofHigh Lendership (M/iacily Schools(Iiimbert Leadership I>e\elopnient. 2004).

- The names of all schools and educa-tors in the stud)' arc pseudonyms. San JoseMiddle School and Joel Montero are actualnames.

Linda Lambert is Professor Emeritus atCalifornia State University at Hayward;linlambert@aol.com. She is the author ofLeadership Capacity for Lasting SchoolImprovement {ASCD. 2003).

A S S O C I A T I O N F O R S r i ' E R V i s i o N A N D C I R R K I I H .M D E V E L O P M E N T 65