Search

Almost every state in the United States has revamped its principal evaluation policies since 2009, yet we know little about how they are implemented. Based on interviews and document analysis in 21 small- and medium-sized school districts, we found that superintendents' sensemaking shaped their implementation of policy. Drawing on their beliefs about principals and evaluation and their understanding of their district context, superintendents in lower performing districts reported that they complied with the processes specified in state principal evaluation policies but strayed from state guidelines regarding maintaining a focus on instructional leadership during evaluation. In contrast, superintendents of higher performing districts reported that they implemented evaluation processes loosely but adhered to their state's policy emphasis on instructional leadership. Our findings raise questions about whether the implementation of principal evaluation policies disadvantages principals in lower performing districts. We thus caution against attaching high-stakes consequences such as incentive pay or sanctions to these policies. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED616816.]

Purpose: This mixed-methods study examined the association between the degree to which principal evaluation systems include intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation and principals' perceptions of whether their district's evaluation system promotes leadership change and improvement. We also investigated how principals experience intrinsic sources of motivation in the context of principal evaluation. Research Methods/Approach: For our quantitative analysis, we administered surveys to 82 elementary and middle school principals in 21 districts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Tennessee. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with principals' perceptions of their district evaluation systems. For our qualitative analysis, we selected six principals from the 82 survey participants. We used the constant comparative method and a consensus approach to coding the interview data; this enabled us to identify linkages between key codes and broader themes. Findings: Our quantitative analyses indicated that principals' perceptions of whether their evaluation system promoted leadership improvement were strongly associated with the degree to which they reported that their evaluation system included intrinsic sources of motivation. Our qualitative analysis revealed clear differences among principals with regard to their interactions with district administrators, the nature of their principal professional development activities, and their experiences with autonomy, feedback, and district expectations. Implications: Principal evaluation and professional development are under-researched topics. This study identified mechanisms through which principals seem to find evaluation intrinsically motivating. This is one of the first studies to empirically test Firestone's argument that evaluation systems that support intrinsic motivation are more effective than those that emphasize extrinsic motivation.

Despite the growing appeal of teacher leadership and teacher collaboration, we know little about the relationship between teacher leadership roles and collaboration. In this study, we use surveys (n = 523) and interviews (n = 47) of teachers to examine whether teacher leadership roles were associated with collaboration. We find that collaboration was an incentive to pursue a teacher leadership role and teacher leaders perceived their role improved and increased collaboration with peers. Teacher leaders' perceptions varied significantly by role type, school level, and school effectiveness. These findings offer promising evidence for school leaders interested in using teacher leadership to spur collaboration among teachers.

Science education reforms aimed at narrowing racial achievement gaps often call for educators to make their instruction more inclusive and relevant to students' lives. Culturally Relevant Science Teaching (CRST) requires teachers to develop students' sociopolitical consciousness (SPC) in science, yet little is known about if and how science teachers are enacting this component. Additionally, little research has explicitly examined science teachers' SPC. This study explores the extent to which 10 preservice science teachers describe and report implementing the tenets of CRST in their student teaching placements and examines their SPC. We found that most participants mentioned academic success (the first tenet) and cultural competence (the second tent) in their descriptions of CRST implementation, but only two participants described developing students' SPC (the third tenet). Additionally, we found that the two participants who alluded to developing students' SPC also exhibited a higher level of personal SPC. This key finding supports the theoretical assertion that science teachers' SPC shapes their capacity to fully enact CRST. Our findings underscore the need for teacher educators to cultivate preservice teachers' SPC in science education programs.

Teacher evaluation's relationship with instructional improvement is under-theorized in the literature. To address this gap, this paper uses a conceptual framework rooted in human, social, and material capital to analyze and synthesize findings from research conducted since 2009 on whether and under what conditions teacher evaluation stimulates change in teachers' instruction. We find that teacher evaluation can facilitate instructional improvement if evaluators understand teaching and the teacher evaluation system and teachers and evaluators trust each other and have opportunities to develop social capital regarding instruction. In addition, adequate time and a user-friendly online data system appear to facilitate the use of teacher evaluation to stimulate changes in teachers' practice. This paper thus presents a theoretical framework, rooted in theory and empirical research, that may prove useful to scholars and practitioners.

Principal professional learning is shifting in many districts in the United States of America away from didactic, central office-managed workshops to include more peer-led learning opportunities. Yet researchers have largely failed to examine issues of positionality and authority in principal professional learning, despite international scholarship that demonstrates the influence of micropolitics on the enactment of change. Using event analysis of a critical case study in an urban district in the northeast USA, we examine three chains of events. Principals and central office administrators used a variety of tactics -- cooperation, compromise, and co-optation -- to navigate overt and covert conflict during implementation of peer-led principal professional learning. Principals and central office administrators encountered micropolitics as they determined authority over the learning agenda, negotiated a redefinition of a new principal role, and co-constructed official spaces for peer-led learning. Findings provide lessons for educational leaders and those responsible for professional learning in districts with middle manager roles in any context, as well as suggesting that future research on the micropolitics of principal professional learning is warranted.

Most recent research on teacher evaluation examines evaluation's measurement properties and accountability uses. Less research studies how evaluation data can improve teaching and student learning. In other contexts, researchers have examined how teachers use data to improve their practice. From general research on teachers' data use, we apply the data-driven decision-making (DDDM) framework to synthesize research on teacher evaluation since 2009. We illustrate how evaluation data are collected, analyzed, and synthesized to inform instruction and improve student learning. Most research focused on teachers' use of observation data, not their use of student data. We find that the teachers' use of evaluation data involves more social learning than the DDDM model implies. The effects of observation on instruction and student learning are often weak, apparently because observers lack the time and knowledge to support teachers' thorough analysis and synthesis of evaluation data. Implications for policy and further research are offered.

Despite major changes to teacher evaluation since 2009, scant research examines how principals enact these policies. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 44 principals in 13 Connecticut districts, we use structure-agency theory to characterize how principals improvised when implementing the state evaluation model. We find that principals' use of discretion varied across the system's components, took different forms, and appeared aimed at varied outcomes. Particular forms of discretion supported the system's goals, while others likely undermined them. Principals tended to use their discretion to further the system's development aims as opposed to its accountability goals. Our findings have implications for the enactment of teacher evaluation policy, the roles of district administrators, and principals' work as instructional leaders in an accountability context.

In this paper we describe the development and application of a research-based model for understanding the formulation and implementation of education policy. We draw upon research on policy implementation across a variety of contexts to create what we call the "high leverage policy" (HLP) framework. The HLP framework identifies three specific areas policy makers should attend to: the policy-to-practice lever, design features of the policy, and contingencies for implementation. These three elements are connected by an explicit theory-of-action that describes the policy's intentions and how it will play out in practice. We illustrate the application of the HLP framework using an example of state policy development and execution in Rhode Island. Finally, we conclude by discussing the framework's potential utility to policy makers.

The intersection of development in family and school settings has been well established and education policies have begun to promote ways to bridge the two contexts (i.e. teacher evaluations). For this manuscript, authors focus on how teachers and principals used a state educator evaluation policy to position parents as authorities on education. We utilize a Critical Policy Analysis and provide findings based on a study of 12 districts implementing a new teacher evaluation policy in Connecticut. Directionality of the strategies used to implement the policy surfaced as having implications for how much authority districts and schools granted to parents. These findings yield lessons and questions for teachers regarding practice and how they may be asked to participate in policies that measure its value.

In this article, the authors consider three sources of support for new teachers--hiring practices, relationships with colleagues, and curriculum--all found in earlier research to influence new teachers' satisfaction with their work, their sense of success with students, and their eventual retention in their job. They find that a "support gap" exists: new teachers in low-income schools are less likely than their counterparts in high-income schools to experience timely and information-rich hiring, to benefit from mentoring and support by experienced colleagues, and to have a curriculum that is complete and aligned with state standards, yet flexible for use in the classroom. Such patterns of difference between high-income and low-income schools warrant careful consideration because they reveal broad patterns of inequity, which can have severe consequences for low-income students. Survey data for this study were collected from random samples of teachers in five states. One survey, focusing on hiring practices and teachers' relationships with colleagues, was administered to 374 first-year and second-year teachers in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan. A second survey, focusing on curriculum, was administered to 295 second-year elementary school teachers in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington. The inequitable patterns of support for teachers reported here have important implications for the work of state policymakers, school district administrators, and principals. The authors describe these and offer recommendations for policy and practice in the conclusion. (Contains 3 tables and 3 footnotes.)

This case focuses on the complexity of change and improvement within schools with a particular emphasis on the role of the principal and a science teacher leader. Although current rhetoric suggests that school improvement should happen quickly and consistently, research indicates that it is difficult, context specific, and incremental. In fact, expecting quick change can backfire, leading to short-term technical fixes that inhibit exploration of underlying beliefs and assumptions that generate meaningful change that results in learning and continuous improvement. Focused on a principal and teacher leader in a school facing declining science scores and other challenges, this case asks aspiring and practicing administrators and teacher leaders to consider the assumptions driving individuals' behavior in their efforts to enhance practice and respond to external challenges in the long term.

Teachers have the largest school-based influence on student learning, yet there is little research on how instructional practice is systematically distributed within tracking systems. We examine whether teaching practice varies significantly across track levels and, if so, which aspects of instructional practice differ systematically. Using multilevel modeling, we find that teachers of low track classrooms provided significantly less emotional support, organizational support, and instructional support to students in their classes than did teachers of high track classrooms. Mathematics classes were also observed to have higher quality instructional support for both content understanding and analysis and problem solving than English classes. We develop cases illustrating how small but significant differences in instructional quality are associated with substantially diverging lived experiences for students in high and low track classes.

How are teachers experiencing the more rigorous teacher evaluation systems that many states have mandated in recent years? Donaldson, who has studied teacher evaluation reform over the past eight years, shares insights from a study of 14 Connecticut districts that have implemented the state's 2012 teacher evaluation reforms. In surveys and interviews with hundreds of educators, she found that teachers favored the general aims of evaluation reform. They wanted to raise standards for professional practice and they favored using multiple measures of teacher performance. They valued the feedback they received from more frequent observations and post-observation conferences--but they noted that principals were struggling to find the time to provide this feedback. They also shared that the new evaluation systems were causing tension, stress, and anxiety. The author fears that the demands of new teacher evaluation systems will lead many schools to revert to the traditional, ineffective model--and she urges schools to learn from experience and remain committed to implementing reforms.

Purpose: Educator evaluation systems have recently undergone scrutiny and reform, and district and school leaders play a key role in interpreting and enacting these systems. This article uses framing theory to understand district leaders' interpretation and advancement of a state's new educator evaluation policy. Research Methods: The article draws on qualitative data from 14 Connecticut districts to highlight the relationship between state policy, district leadership, and the ideas about educator evaluation making their way into schools. We employed frame analysis to systematically analyze interview data from district leaders responsible for evaluation reform. Findings: District leaders' frames addressed two distinct elements of the evaluation policy: accountability and development. Overall, district leaders tended to emphasize the accountability aspects of the state's new evaluation system--SEED (System for Educator Evaluation and Development). Second, we find that district leaders' frames predominately issued solutions and advice regarding the implementation of the evaluation policy. These leaders rarely enforced their framing of SEED. Finally, we present a vignette to highlight how one elementary school principal encountered frames within his district context and elected to respond to the ideas and rules of the new evaluation system. Implications for Research and Practice: This article's findings encourage additional research on the role of district leaders in translating state policy into school-level change. This article also highlights the need for district-level actors to have a deep understanding of current policy as well as the skills to frame policy messages to diverse audiences.

In the past five years, teacher evaluation has become a preferred policy lever at the federal, state, and local levels. Revisions to teacher evaluation systems have made teachers individually accountable for student achievement to a greater extent than ever before. We describe and analyze the components, processes, and consequences embedded in new teacher evaluation policies in all fifty states, the twenty-five largest school districts, and Washington, DC. We contextualize these policies by basing our analysis in prior research on teacher evaluation, and examining key comparisons between state and district policies, including their treatment of teachers in tested and untested subjects with career and beginning teachers. We find notable differences in how states and the largest districts have structured evaluation policies for all teachers and, in particular, for early career teachers compared with their more veteran counterparts, and for teachers in nontested grades and subjects compared with those in tested grades and subjects.

Despite growing momentum to overhaul teacher evaluation policies and practices, scant research examines how educators at the street level of such reform--principals and teachers--make sense of them, and almost no research examines the implications of current evaluation reforms for equity. This article provides findings based on a study of 14 districts implementing a new teacher evaluation policy in Connecticut. It focuses on how principals shaped teachers' opportunities to learn about the new policy. We find that the majority of teachers' opportunities to learn were formal and in whole group or one-on-one formats. We find important differences in the quantity and quality of learning opportunities at the district level, with districts serving greater shares of low-income students, students of color, and English language learners generally offering teachers fewer and lower quality opportunities to learn about the new reform than their counterparts. As such, this article builds on prior research illustrating the potential of new evaluation systems to exacerbate inequities and raises important cautions regarding the extent to which the unprecedented teacher evaluation reforms (currently underway) may exacerbate inequities among school districts.

This article examines New Haven (Connecticut) Public Schools' efforts to create a new teacher evaluation model in a collaborative manner. Based on semistructured interviews with nearly 100 educators, we develop a case study charting the progress of the new system, TEVAL, from an initial concept through early implementation. We find that John Kingdon's three streams--problems, politics, and policies--all aligned in the years preceding TEVAL's adoption and were supported by local policy entrepreneurs. Notably, we also find that TEVAL's progress was further facilitated by the relationships and interactions among the participants themselves.

Purpose: This article presents findings from a study of six schools in the Together Initiative (TI), which facilitates increased school autonomy from districts and expands teacher decision-making authority. This study aims to understand how TI's theory of action changed structures, cultures, and agency as the concepts of "site-based management" and "expanded teacher decision making" were interpreted and implemented by district and school leaders and teachers. Research Design: Data were collected over the first 2 years of the initiative using a concurrent mixed-methods design. Field notes from more than 200 hours of observations and transcripts of 231 semistructured interviews with stakeholders were coded using the constant-comparative method. Findings from qualitative data were triangulated with annual teacher survey findings. Findings: Implementation of TI varied across the six schools and depended greatly on school staffs' existing relationships the district, principal support for decision-making structures, and the extent to which school cultures reflected trust and teachers were able to enact greater agency. Only two schools experienced moderate increases in site-based management and expanded teacher decision making; those that did not were missing at least one of these structural or cultural supports. Conclusions: At a time when charter schools are touted as an effective reform model, this article informs policy and practice on the original charter concept--autonomous, innovative district schools. Our findings suggest that creating contexts where site-based management can flourish is far more complicated than changing structures or establishing supportive school cultures.

Of late, teachers unions have worked together with district management in new and notable ways. This paper examines the role of teachers unions in shaping the Together Initiative (TI), which seeks to increase autonomy and broaden decision making in urban schools in one northeastern state. In general, state-level union leaders have taken more consistently reform-oriented stances than those adopted by their district-level counterparts. We found that district-level union leaders supported TI's growth and were willing to work with district leaders to reform schools in districts where labor-management relations had been collaborative in recent years and in schools where union leaders trusted the principal. Where labor-management relations were less positive and the union viewed principals as more arbitrary, union leaders practiced more industrial-style leadership.

School districts have typically not done a good job of managing the human side of teacher evaluation. In general, neither supervisors nor teachers find performance assessment a constructive, interpersonally respectful experience. District leaders can cultivate high-quality teaching--and attend to the human side of assessment--by taking five crucial steps. They should (1) include teachers in designing the performance evaluation system; (2) protect opportunities to learn and grow; (3) ensure that principals and coaches are skilled at observing and consulting with teachers; (4) ensure that principals' workloads have sufficient time built in for teacher evaluation; and (5) make instructional improvement a clear district priority.

Motivated by shifting demographics and the persistently low academic performance of Latinas/os in U.S. schools, the authors examine factors that influence the recruitment and retention of Latina/o teachers. Applying Latina/o critical race theory and cross-case analysis to data collected from three groups of Latinas/os at distinct points in the teacher pipeline--high school students, undergraduate preservice teachers, and inservice teachers--the authors conclude that the perspectives and experiences of Latinas/os differ significantly from the dominant narrative on teacher recruitment and retention, which is largely defined by White teachers' career histories. The findings of this study serve as an important race- and culture-conscious counternarrative that can inform efforts to systematically diversify the teaching profession. (Contains 8 notes and 3 tables.)

Background/Context: Increasing teacher retirements and persistently high turnover have ignited interest in teacher recruitment and retention in recent years. Nowhere is the need to understand these issues more urgent than in low-income schools. These schools face especially large challenges in attracting and retaining competent and committed teachers. Such schools often experience high levels of turnover and, as a result, are staffed disproportionately by inexperienced teachers who are generally less effective than their more experienced counterparts. In addition to this educational cost, elevated turnover also generates substantial organizational and financial losses for low-income schools. Professionals working in other careers constitute one potential source of teachers for low-income schools. The proportion of midcareer entrants among first-year teachers nationwide nearly doubled in recent years. Although analysts assert that midcareer entrants bring great commitment to teaching, scant research examines whether they stay in teaching longer than individuals who enter teaching directly after college. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The primary purpose of this study is to examine whether older entrants to teaching are more likely than younger recruits to voluntarily remain in low-income schools and the teaching profession as a whole. I also explore whether older new teachers' backgrounds differ from those of younger new teachers and whether they are more likely than their younger counterparts to remain in K-12 school-based jobs (i.e., teaching, working as a specialist or administrator). In addition, I examine whether older new teachers who leave the profession have different reasons for doing so than younger new teachers and whether they enter different occupations after teaching. Research Design: I investigate the questions described above using a sample of over 2,000 Teach For America (TFA) teachers who began their careers in schools serving high proportions of low-income and minority children. The sample for my study is drawn from a census of all teachers enrolled in the 2000, 2001, and 2002 TFA cohorts. These teachers would have accumulated 4, 5, or 6 years of teaching experience if they had taught continually. From 3,283 TFA enrollees in these cohorts, 2,029 individuals (62%) responded to an online survey that gathered data on teachers' individual characteristics (e.g., subject matter preparation and assignment; demographic information) and, where relevant, the timing of their first departure from their school and the teaching profession. I used discrete-time survival analysis, logistic regression, and chi-square analysis to analyze the data. Findings/Results: I found that older TFA entrants to teaching had a lower risk than did younger entrants of leaving low-income schools, the teaching profession, and broader school-based roles. I further found that older entrants' backgrounds differed from younger entrants. Older entrants were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to be male, to be African American, and to have lived in the locale where they were placed by TFA. Among respondents who left teaching, older entrants' reasons for doing so differed significantly from those noted by younger entrants. Older entrants to teaching were significantly more likely than younger entrants to cite family or health matters as a very or extremely important factor in their decision to leave. Last, older entrants who left the profession also entered significantly different types of professions than did younger entrants. Most notably, older entrants to teaching were significantly more likely than younger entrants to become a K-12 specialist or administrator after they left the classroom. Conclusions/Recommendations: Viewed broadly, these findings suggest that older entrants to teaching may prove a promising source of teachers for low-income schools. On all measures, older entrants demonstrated more commitment to low-income schools and the teaching profession than did their younger counterparts. Notably, even though they began their careers in challenging, low-income schools, they left the teaching profession at rates (61.3% in 3 years) that are not that distant from some estimates of attrition of teachers who began their careers in urban schools, some of which were likely less challenging than those where TFA teachers typically work. More broadly, districts seeking to develop human capital across multiple levels of the system might also consider targeting older individuals as a source of new teachers. Not only do these people appear to teach longer, but if they leave teaching, they are more likely than younger entrants to remain in schools in roles other than classroom teacher.

A large-scale, nationwide analysis of Teach For America teacher turnover presents a deeper picture of which TFAers stay, which ones leave the profession and some suggestions about why they leave. The authors learned that nearly two-thirds (60.5%) of TFA teachers continue as public school teachers beyond their two-year commitment; more than half (56.4%) leave their initial placements in low-income schools after two years, but 43.6% stay longer; and by their fifth year, 14.8% continue to teach in the same low-income schools to which they were originally assigned. When TFA alumni leave, they typically leave the profession for the same reasons that other teachers leave the profession: poor working conditions or career opportunities outside teaching. (Contains 1 table.)

This article provides key findings from a study of 30 principals working in charter and conventional schools in two northeastern states. It aims to inform policy makers regarding how principals could more positively influence teacher quality. It focuses on the following questions: (1) What influenced how principals hired, assigned, evaluated, and provided professional development?; (2) What constraints and opportunities affected the ways they carried out these tasks?; and (3) Do the ways in which principals carried out hiring, assignment, evaluation, and professional development differ by context? Three key findings emerge: (1) Principals reported more latitude on some human capital functions than others; (2) Some principals felt more constrained than others in efforts to hire, assign, evaluate, dismiss, and develop teachers; and (3) Whether charter or conventional, schools that were smaller, enrolled elementary students, exhibited a strong identity according to principals, and were supported in key ways by their districts seemed to offer principals fewer barriers to conducting important human capital processes. Policy makers can take the following steps to address each issue: (1) Rethinking resources for professional development and teacher compensation; (2) Decreasing contractual limitations to raising teacher quality; and (3) Reducing cultural and interpersonal impediments to efforts to raise teaching quality.

Teach For America (TFA) recruits high-achieving college graduates to teach for 2 years in the nation's low-income schools. This study is the first to examine these teachers' retention nationwide, asking whether, when, and why they voluntarily transfer from their low-income placement schools or leave teaching altogether. Based on a survey of three entire TFA cohorts (n = 2,029), this longitudinal, retrospective study uses discrete-time survival analysis. We found that teachers who have more challenging assignments--split grades, multiple subjects, or out-of-field classes--are at greater risk of leaving their schools or resigning from teaching than those with single-grade, single-subject, or in-field assignments. It is notable that in-field science teachers' risk of resigning was higher than that of their out-of-field counterparts with nonscience degrees. This study informs policymakers and school officials seeking to retain TFA and other promising teachers. (Contains 7 notes and 4 tables.)

This case describes dilemmas faced by a second-year principal whose urban school received a major grant to encourage teacher leadership, expand decision making, and promote school-based autonomy. This case focuses on the principal's efforts to negotiate his work with multiple stakeholders, including the coach, teachers, and district leadership. The principal struggles to balance his desire to cede authority to teachers and foster teacher leadership with his responsibility to raise student performance.

Too often, teacher evaluations haven't provided enough information to spur improvement in teaching. The vast majority of teachers in any school, district, or state are rated above--sometimes well above--average. The feedback that teachers do receive is often not specific enough to help them improve. In this article, Morgaen Donaldson explores some of the reasons behind these unhelpful, sometimes overly positive evaluations. She also tells of three school systems that have made concrete changes to their evaluation systems in an attempt to make them more useful. (Contains 1 endnote.)

Teachers unions are among the most powerful, yet least studied, actors in public education today. Although public attention focuses on the influence of national unions, the policies that most affect teachers and schooling are bargained by local unions and school boards. Interviews with 30 recently elected local union presidents reveal that these leaders balance competing interests and obligations, from the concerns and priorities of their members to pressures from state and national affiliates. Although these presidents reaffirm the traditional union agenda, most also advocate an expanded agenda of teacher professionalism and more collaborative approaches to collective bargaining and contract management. (Contains 1 table and 1 footnote.)

This retrospective, longitudinal study compares the career paths of graduates of Harvard University's master's-level teacher education program (TEP) before and after it adopted an urban emphasis in 2001. I surveyed all graduates of TEP, 1985-2006, which yielded a sample of 636. Using discrete-time survival analysis, I examined where respondents taught and whether, when, and why they left teaching. I found that graduates of TEP's urban-focused program were more likely to teach in urban schools than the comparison cohorts but less likely than prior cohorts to stay in teaching. However, compared to the non-urban cohort members that were working in urban schools, urban cohort members were no more likely to exit. I further found that Whites and males in the urban cohorts were more likely to exit than members of these groups in previous cohorts, whereas females of color who prepared for urban settings were much less likely to leave than their counterparts who had received more general preparation. A large number of urban cohort members who left teaching identified "lack of community support for the school" as a key factor in their decision to leave teaching. At the same time, they felt drawn into other roles, such as principal, or professions, such as law, that, in their view, enabled them to have greater impact on urban schooling. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 3 notes.)

Background/Context: Increasingly, instructional reforms in US schools place teachers in differentiated roles, such as literacy coach or data analyst. Not only do these roles hold promise for reforming instruction, but they also may make the teaching career more rewarding by offering teachers new challenges over time. In the past, teachers who held roles that distinguished them encountered resistance from colleagues who questioned their distinction and rebuffed their instructional advice (Lortie, 1975; Little, 1988). In doing so, colleagues defended their classroom autonomy and appealed to teaching's traditional egalitarian culture (Little, 1988; Johnson, 1990; Mangin, 2005). As veteran teachers retire, the teachers that take differentiated roles today may be relatively inexperienced and young. Thus, these teachers may violate teaching's allocation of privileges based on seniority (Lortie, 1975) in addition to autonomy and egalitarianism. Purpose: In this study, we set out to understand how second-stage (third-tenth year) teachers experienced differentiated roles in the current context of accountability, where instructional change is the order of the day. Participants: We selected 20 second-stage teachers who held differentiated roles that were formal, compensated by time or money, and promised to be ongoing rather than temporary. Our sample included teachers working in several metropolitan areas and in a range of school settings. Research Design: This is an interview-based, qualitative study. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were collected through hour-long, semi-structured interviews. Constructing matrices and writing analytic memos, we conducted cross-case analysis. Findings: Among the second-stage teachers we interviewed, only those whose roles sought to change colleagues' practice provoked resistance from their colleagues. Teachers who held these roles, which we designated "reform roles," reported that colleagues resisted their efforts to provide feedback and resented their special recognition, especially given their inexperience. Moreover, teachers in reform roles performed these roles strategically, in order to reduce colleagues' opposition. In some cases, the teachers in our sample reduced the scope of their role in an effort to avoid provoking their colleagues. We concluded that the norms of autonomy, egalitarianism, and seniority continue to exert great influence among teachers, whether veteran or second-stage. Conclusions/Recommendations: These findings suggest that instructional reform built on such roles should be designed and implemented with more consideration of the power and persistence of teaching's traditional norms. In this way, these roles might better promote whole-school instructional change and provide appealing career opportunities that retain teachers.

Teachers in the second stages of their careers--those with 4-10 years of experience--are often eager to vary their responsibilities, work collaboratively with peers, and influence teaching beyond their own classrooms. With many veteran teachers retiring, principals are apt to recruit these second-stage teachers to fill teacher leadership positions. In interviews with some second-stage teachers, the authors found that they had often struggled because their schools did not provide a professional framework or established a formal set of responsibilities to provide legitimacy to their leadership roles. The authors recommend that schools create stronger supports to help teacher leaders overcome the obstacles caused by the norms of school culture-teacher autonomy, egalitarianism, and deference to seniority.