Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Educational change doesn’t come easy: lead teachers’ work as change agents

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite research highlighting the negative impact of ability grouping on student outcomes in mathematics, the practice seems entrenched in New Zealand schools. The Ministry of Education launched a professional development initiative with the aim that mathematics lead teachers would drive change towards teaching in mixed-ability groups using a problem-solving pedagogy. Lead teachers were seen as uniquely positioned to promote change within schools. This study examined lead teachers’ changes in their own practice and that affected in their schools following the initiative. The study used a problem-based methodology. Through careful, in-depth interviews with lead teachers from six primary schools, the researchers examined lead teachers’ theories-of-action and the extent to which they were able to affect change. Findings showed different levels of change in lead teachers’ own and their school’s practice. Only two lead teachers made considerable changes in their own practice, and only one could fully incorporate mixed-ability grouping into school-wide practices. Analyses across the six cases revealed four factors impacting lead teachers’ ability to affect change: positional authority, senior leadership support, expertise in content and pedagogy, and changing teacher beliefs to bring about change. The study concludes that while the notion of lead teachers implementing change through working closely with their colleagues seems exciting and promising, the conditions for teacher leadership to be effective need to be met. Furthermore, the case of this national initiative shows that shortcuts in professional development are ineffective, especially for a matter so disputed and entrenched as ability grouping in mathematics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony, G., & Hunter, R. (2017). Grouping practices in New Zealand mathematics classrooms: where are we at and where should we be? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0054-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basit, T. (2010). Conducting research in educational contexts. New York: Continuum International Publication Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosky, D. (2011). Micropolitics in the school: Teacher leaders' use of political skill and influence tactics. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1), 1–11.

  • Boaler, J. (2009). When politics took the place of inquiry: a response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s review of instructional practices. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 588–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 519–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J. (2003). Singaporean students’ mathematical thinking in problem solving and problem posing: An exploratory study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(5), 719–737.

  • Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, B. D., & Sherretz, C. E. (2012). Professional development school partnerships: an instrument for teacher leadership. School-University Partnerships, 5(1), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Causa, O., & Chapuis, C. (2009). Equity in student achievement across OECD countries: An investigation of the role of policies. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151973.

  • Chamberland, L. (2009). Distributed leadership: developing a new practice: an action research study. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

  • Chapman, O. (2015). Mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching problem solving. Lumat, 3(1), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, J. O. A., & Andrews, D. (2010). Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, A. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  • Curtis, R. (2013). Finding a new way: leveraging teacher leadership to meet unprecedented demands. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durias, R. F. (2010). Teacher leaders of color: The impact of professional development on their leadership. Santa Barbara: University of California.

  • Education Review Office. (2013). Mathematics in years 4 to 8: Developing a responsive curriculum. Wellington: Education Review Office.

  • Ell, F. (2013). Education survey more than just rankings. Retrieved from www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2013/12/05/education-survey-more-than-just-rankings-fiona-ell/.

  • Gaffney, M., & Faragher, R. (2010). Sustaining improvement in numeracy: developing pedagogical content knowledge and leadership capabilities in tandem. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 12(2), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigante, N. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2008). Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 302–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ pedagogic practices when teaching mixed and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., & Parsons, S. (2013). Prevalence of streaming in UK primary schools: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 514–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Rebello, C. M., & Sinha, S. (2012). Supporting the development of science teacher leaders. Where do we begin? Science Educator, 21(1), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Woßmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences- in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & Townsend, A. (2007). Developing leaders for tomorrow: releasing system potential. School Leadership & Management, 27(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701237339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J., & Bonne, L. (2011). Configurations of instructional leadership enactments that promote the teaching and learning of mathematics in a New Zealand elementary school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 794–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Carmeli, M., & Shore, R. (2004). The professional development of high school chemistry coordinators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000031460.64585.fd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornby, G., Witte, C., & Mitchell, D. (2011). Policies and practices of ability grouping in New Zealand intermediate schools. Support for Learning, 26(3), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01485.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools: effects on pupils’ self-concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 315–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks: Corwin press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. C. (2017). An autoethnography of a (reluctant) teacher leader. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: the role of teachers’ perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lleras, C., & Rangel, C. (2008). Ability grouping practices in elementary school and African American/Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 279–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, T. (2013). The resurgence of ability grouping and persistence of tracking. Houston: The Brown Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnab, D. (2000). Raising standards in mathematics education: values, vision, and TIMSS. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004190310335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangin, M. M. (2005). Distributed leadership and the culture of schools: teacher leaders’ strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 15(4), 456–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2011). Peer? Expert. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2012). The fundamental dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated professional development: do as I (kind of) say, not as I (sort of) do. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 859–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12452563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Huggins, K. S. (2012). Distributed but undefined: new teacher leader roles to change schools. Journal of School Leadership, 22(5), 953–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R. (2012). How do pupils experience setting in primary mathematics? Mathematics Teaching, 22(230), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, A., Le Chasseur, K., & Donaldson, M. (2018). The structure of tracking: instructional practices of teachers leading low-and high-track classes. American Journal of Education, 124(4), 445–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGillicuddy, D., & Devine, D. (2018). “Turned off” or “ready to fly”—ability grouping as an act of symbolic violence in primary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X030314007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 961–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: what do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12456700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). Theories of action. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy (pp. 807–810). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., & Donald, R. (2014). On-the-job decision making: Understanding and evaluating how leaders solve problems. In S. Chitpin & C. W. Evers (Eds.), Decision-making in educational leadership: Principles, policies, and practices (pp. 93–109). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, V. M. J., & Timperley, H. (2002). Partnership: Focusing the relationship on the task of school improvement. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romberg, T. A. (2016). Classroom instruction that fosters mathematical thinking and problem solving: Connections between theory and practice. In A. H. Schoenfeld & A. H. Sloane (Eds.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 287–304). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2014). Becoming a high expectation teacher: Raising the bar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, G., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: a study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: an international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15603982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (reprint). Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based math instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Struyve, C., Meredith, C., & Gielen, S. (2014). Who am I and where do I belong? The perception and evaluation of teacher leaders concerning teacher leadership practices and micropolitics in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 203–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (1993). Ability grouping and its effect on pupil behaviour: A case study on a Midlands comprehensive school. Education Today, 43, 14–17.

  • Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Victoria: Centre for Strategic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon-Dotson, L. J. (2008). Promoting inclusive education through teacher leadership teams: a school reform initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 18(3), 344–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460801800305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watling, R. (2002). The analysis of qualitative data. In M. Coleman & A. R. Briggs (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 262–278). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: a review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • York-Barr, A. J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds St, Auckland, 1150, New Zealand

    Frauke Meyer & Kelly Slater-Brown

Authors
  1. Frauke Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly Slater-Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frauke Meyer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Interview questions

Appendix. Interview questions

  1. 1.

    How are students in your class grouped / structured for mathematics lessons?

  2. 2.

    Why do you group / structure students in this way?

  3. 3.

    What do you think is the best way to group students and why?

  4. 4.

    What information do you draw on to set up the structure of your mathematics program?

  5. 5.

    What are your thought about ability and mixed-ability grouping?

    (prompts: impact on student outcomes, instructional challenges, challenges and benefits of both)

  6. 6.

    Within your school, what approach to grouping students is used?

  7. 7.

    Who decides how classes are organized for mathematics across the school?

  8. 8.

    Have you had a discussion as a staff about grouping for mathematics?

  9. 9.

    Have you had consensus on how to do this?

  10. 10.

    What is your role, as a lead teacher, in such discussion and decision-making?

  11. 11.

    In addition to the cluster meetings, have you attended any mathematic professional development in the last year? If yes, which one?

  12. 12.

    What was covered in the professional development course?

  13. 13.

    If the course covered grouping for instructions, has the course influenced how you group students for instruction?

  14. 14.

    You attended the cluster meetings focused on the mixed-ability grouping, have you changed your own practice after attending these meetings? (prompt: problem-solving pedagogy)

  15. 15.

    How has your knowledge gained from the cluster meeting influenced your work as a mathematics lead teacher?

  16. 16.

    Have there been any changes in the way your school or you group students?

    If yes, please explain. (prompt: problem-solving pedagogy)

  17. 17.

    What have been staff reaction to mixed-ability grouping? (prompt: problem-solving pedagogy)

  18. 18.

    Why do you think they reacted this way?

  19. 19.

    What has been helpful or not helpful in changing practice?

  20. 20.

    Do you think grouping mathematics grouping needs to change?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meyer, F., Slater-Brown, K. Educational change doesn’t come easy: lead teachers’ work as change agents. Math Ed Res J 34, 139–163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00333-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00333-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation