School and district effectiveness studies show that high levels of student achievement are possible when schools and the district act as coordinated units of change. There is also a growing recognition that principals cannot lead alone and that school leadership teams (SLTs) are essential to the improvement process. Limited studies have explored the mental models of central office, principals, and teachers who are members of SLTs. We hypothesize that when SLTs and the central office engage collaboratively in professional development about the tasks of leadership, shared mental models are more likely to develop. A case study methodology is used and multiple sources of data are analyzed through two theoretical lenses: tasks of leadership and mental models. Findings indicate a growing congruence between the district and SLTs' mental models regarding the tasks of leadership. This study is significant in showing that with professional development, SLTs could serve as an important bridge between the central office and the schools in ways that can enhance coordination, depth, spread, and commitment to district reforms.
Agullard, K., Huebner, T.A., Goughnour, D., & Calisi-Corbett, G. (2005). The impact of three different approaches to districtwide continuous improvement. San Francisco: WestEd.
2.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy change and defensive routines. Boston: Pitman.
3.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Burke, P.H. (2004). Lessons learned about sustainable results in urban middle schools: Four principals and their reflection on the process of change . In J. H. Chrispeels (Ed.), Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership (pp. 192-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
California Department of Education. (2006, August). Dataquest. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://data1.cde.gov/Dataquest/
6.
Chrispeels, J.H. (2002). An emerging conceptual and practical framework for implementing district-wide effective schools reform. Journal for Effective Schools, 1(1), 17-30.
7.
Chrispeels, J. H. (Ed.). (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Chrispeels, J.H., Andrews, C., & González, M. (2007). System supports for teacher learning and school improvement. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook on school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
9.
Chrispeels, J.H., & González, M. (2006). The challenge of system change in complex educational systems: A district model to scale up reform. In A. Harris & J. H. Chrispeels (Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems: International perspectives (pp. 241-273). London: Routledge.
10.
Coburn, C.E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
11.
Daly, A.J., & Chrispeels, J.H. (2005). From problem to possibility: Leadership for implementing and deepening the process of effective schools . Journal for Effective Schools, 4(1), 7-25.
12.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A.M., Husbands, J.L., LaFors, J.R., Young, V.M., & Christopher, C. (2006). Building instructional quality: `Inside-out' and `outside-in' perspectives on San Diego's school reform. In A. Harris & J. H. Chrispeels (Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems: International perspectives (pp. 129-185). London: Routledge.
13.
Datnow, A., Lasky, S., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2006). Integrating educational systems for successful school reform in diverse contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
David, J.L. (1995, April). School-based decision making: Linking decisions to learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389059)
15.
Edmonds, R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-24.
16.
Felner, R., Jackson, A.W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years . Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528-532.
Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J. H. (Eds.). (2006). Improving schools and educational systems: International perspectives. London : Routledge.
19.
Haynes, N.M., Comer, J.P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1988). The School Development Program: A model for school improvement. The Journal of Negro Education, 57(1), 11-21.
20.
Hopkins, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). The past, the present and future of school improvement: Towards the third age. British Educational Research Journal , 27(4), 459-475.
21.
Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M.K. (2006). Reform is learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. London: Routledge.
22.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in American schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Larson, C.M., & LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right and what can go wrong. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency, and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21(8), 899-916.
25.
Lasky, S., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C., Kennedy, E., Schaffer, E., Chrispeels, J.H., & Daly, A.J. (2005). Designing and conducting a gold standard effective schools study. Journal for Effective Schools, 4(1), 27-45.
26.
Leithwood, K.A., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S.A., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.
27.
Leithwood, K.A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership . Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
28.
Levin, H.M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students . Educational Leadership, 44(6), 19-21.
29.
Levine, D.U., & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development, University of Wisconsin Press.
30.
Little, J.W., & Bartlett, L. (2002). Career and commitment in the context of comprehensive school reform. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice , 8(3), 345-370.
31.
Martin, K.J., & Chrispeels, J.H. (2004). A middle school strives to achieve team leadership through opposition and uncertainty. In J. H. Chrispeels (Ed.), Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership (pp. 104-131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
34.
Mintrop, H. (2003). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
Prestine, N.A., & Bowen, C. (1993). Benchmarks of change: Assessing essential school restructuring efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 15(3), 298-319.
36.
Reeves, D.B. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
37.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York : Doubleday.
38.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B., & Smith, B.J. (1994). The fifth discipline field-book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
39.
Sizer, T. (1986). Rebuilding first steps by the Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 38-42.
40.
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Karweit, N., Livermon, B., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for all: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 255-278.
41.
Smylie, M.A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 101, Issue 1, pp. 162-188). Chicago: University of Chicago.
42.
Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
Stringfield, S. (1995). Attempting to enhance student learning through innovative programs: The case for evolving into high reliability organizations . School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 67-96.
44.
Stringfield, S., Ross, S., & Smith, A. (1996). Bold plans for school restructuring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Talley, W.K., & Keedy, J.L. (2006). Assessing school council contribution to the enabling conditions for instructional capacity building: An urban district in Kentucky . Education and Urban Society, 38(4), 419-454.
46.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all districts . Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.
48.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Fostering student achievement: The relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-215.
49.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
