Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online April 1, 2020

Shared Leadership for Learning in Denver’s Portfolio Management Model

A. Chris Torres https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-8597 [email protected], Katrina Bulkley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7157-2458, and Taeyeon KimView all authors and affiliations
Volume 56, Issue 5
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20906546

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines how district governance and different school contexts in Denver’s portfolio management model affect shared leadership for learning. We define this as shared influence on instructional leadership and school-wide decision making, which research suggests have strong ties to student achievement and teacher commitment. Method: We analyze interview data from 53 administrators, teacher leaders, and teachers in eight case study schools and teacher surveys in 48 schools. In both data sets, we purposively sampled based on variance in school performance ratings and by school type (e.g., traditional public, standalone charter, charter management organization [CMO], and innovation schools). Findings: We find that perceptions of shared instructional leadership were generally high across the school contexts, though CMO and innovation schools had the highest perceptions in both the survey and case study data. Schools varied substantially in shared decision making, but innovation schools had higher average scores than other school models. Centralized policies and supports, alongside organizational visions spanning networks of schools, helped explain the enactment of shared leadership for learning. For example, schools within Denver’s “innovation” network shared a common vision of teacher empowerment, while CMOs that had more prescribed policies and practices across their schools had lower reported levels of shared decision making. Implications for Research and Practice: Portfolio management models that prioritize school-based autonomy and choice between different kinds of schools are proliferating in urban areas. Our study helps explain why and how shared leadership for learning differs between school models and explores important implications for this variation.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

References

Allensworth E., Hart H. (2018). How do principals influence student achievement? University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.
Google Scholar
Augustine C. H., Gonzalez G., Ikemoto G. S., Russell J., Zellman G. L., Constant L., Armstrong J., Dembosky J. W. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Rand Corporation.
Google Scholar
Backes B., Hansen M. (2018, January). Reaching further and learning more? Evaluating public impact’s opportunity culture initiative (CALDER Working Paper No. 181). https://caldercenter.org/publications/reaching-further-and-learning-more-evaluating-public-impacts-opportunity-culture
Google Scholar
Bernd M. (1992). Shared decision making requires effective instructional leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659207654011
Google Scholar
Bickmore D. L., Dowell M.-M. S. (2011). Concerns, use of time, and the intersections of leadership: Case study of two charter school principals. Research in the Schools, 18(1), 44–61.
Google Scholar
Bogler R., Nir A. E. (2012). The importance of teachers’ perceived organizational support to job satisfaction: What’s empowerment got to do with it? Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211223310
Google Scholar
Buerger C., Harris D. (2015). How can decentralized systems solve system-level problems? An analysis of market-driven New Orleans school reforms. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(10), 1246–1262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215591182
Google Scholar
Bulkley K. (2005). Losing voice? Educational management organizations and charter schools’ educational programs. Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 204–234.
Google Scholar
Bulkley K. E., Henig J. R., Levin H. M. (2010). Between Public and Private: Politics, Governance, and the New Portfolio Models for Urban School Reform. Harvard Education Press.
Google Scholar
Bush-Mecanas S., Marsh J. A. (2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In Lochmiller C. (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Springer.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Carpenter D. M., Peak C. (2013). Leading charters: How charter school administrators define their roles and their ability to lead. Management in Education, 27(4), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020613487919
Google Scholar
Cooper K. S., Stanulis R. N., Brondyk S. K., Hamilton E. R., Macaluso M., Meier J. A. (2016). The teacher leadership process: Attempting change within embedded systems. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9262-4
Google Scholar
Cravens X. C., Goldring E., Penaloza R. (2012). Leadership practice in the context of U.S. school choice reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 452–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2012.700989
Google Scholar
Creswell J. W., Clark V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Google Scholar
Denice P., Gross B. (2016). Choice, preferences, and constraints: Evidence from public school applications in Denver. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716664395
Google Scholar
DiMartino C. (2014). Navigating public-private partnerships: Introducing the continuum of control. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1086/674375
Google Scholar
Furgeson J., Gill B., Haimson J., Killewald A., McCullough M., Nichols-Barrer I., Teh B-r., Verbitsky-Savitz N., Bowen M., Demeritt A., Hill P., Lake R. (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528536.pdf
Google Scholar
Gallucci C., Swanson J. (2006). Aiming high: Leadership for district-wide instructional improvement. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CTP).
Google Scholar
Gigliotti P. (2019). Leveraging managerial autonomy to turn around low-performing schools: Evidence from the innovation schools program in Denver public schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3419472
Google Scholar
Gold E., Christman J. B., Herold B. (2007). Blurring the boundaries: A case study of private sector involvement in Philadelphia public schools. American Journal of Education, 113(2), 181–212.
Google Scholar
Grissom J. A., Loeb S., Master B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13510020
Google Scholar
Gronn P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X000283006
Google Scholar
Hallam P. R., Smith H. R., Hite J. M., Hite S. J., Wilcox B. R. (2015). Trust and collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515602330
Google Scholar
Hallinger P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Google Scholar
Hallinger P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652
Google Scholar
Hallinger P., Heck R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
Google Scholar
Harris A., Leithwood K., Day C., Sammons P., Hopkins D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9048-4
Google Scholar
Harris D. N., Larsen M. F. (2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes (Technical Report). https://educationresearchalliancenola.org/files/publications/The-Effects-of-the-New-Orleans-Post-Katrina-School-Reforms-on-Student-Academic-Outcomes.pdf
Google Scholar
Hatch T., Hill K., Roegman R. (2016). Investigating the role of instructional rounds in the development of social networks and district-wide improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1022–1053. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653205
Google Scholar
Hill P. T., Campbell C., Gross B. (2013). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Brookings Institution Press.
Google Scholar
Honig M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12443258
Google Scholar
Honig M. I., Rainey L. R. (2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–48.
Google Scholar
Honig M. I., Venkateswaran N., McNeil P. (2017). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 938–971. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217712466
Google Scholar
Ingersoll R. M., Sirinides P., Dougherty P. (2018). Leadership matters: Teachers’ roles in school decision making and school performance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1173452.pdf
Google Scholar
Jacobson S. L., Johnson L., Ylimaki R., Giles C. (2009). Sustaining success in an American school: A case for governance change. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910993131
Google Scholar
Johnson S. M., Reinhorn S. K., Charner-Laird M., Kraft M. A., Ng M., Papay J. P. (2014). Ready to lead, but how? Teachers’ experiences in high-poverty urban schools. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391200/pdf/nihms670733.pdf
Google Scholar
Kemple J. (2011). Children first and student outcomes: 2003–2010. In O’Day J. A., Bitter C. S., Gomez L. M. (Eds.), Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation’s most complex school system (pp. 255–292). Harvard Education Press.
Google Scholar
Lake R. J., Hill P. T. (2009). Performance management in portfolio school districts. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532895.pdf
Google Scholar
Lavallée P., Beaumont J.-F. (2015). Why we should put some weight on weights. Survey Insights: Methods from the Field, Weighting: Practical Issues and “How to” Approach. https://surveyinsights.org/?p=6255
Google Scholar
Lee A. N., Nie Y. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s and immediate supervisor’s empowering behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.006
Google Scholar
Leithwood K., Jantzi D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501
Google Scholar
Leithwood K., Mascall B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321221
Google Scholar
Little J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the learning-centered school. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_pdreport.pdf
Google Scholar
Louis K. S., Dretzke B., Wahlstrom K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
Google Scholar
Louis K. S., Leithwood K., Wahlstrom K. L., Anderson S. E., Michlin M., Mascall B., Gordon M., Strauss T., Thomas E., Moore S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning-Executive-Summary.pdf
Google Scholar
Marks H. M., Printy S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412
Google Scholar
McEachin A. J., Welsh R. O., Brewer D. J. (2016). The variation in student achievement and behavior within a portfolio management model: Early results from New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 669–691. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716659928
Google Scholar
Miles M. B., Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Google Scholar
Miles M. B., Louis K. S. (1990). Mustering the will and skill for change. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 57–61. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bebc/54c560e15f1106040789e6563cb9972d750b.pdf
Google Scholar
Murphy J., Elliott S. N., Goldring E., Porter A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership & Management, 27(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701237420
Google Scholar
Neumerski C. M. (2013). 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
Google Scholar
Ni Y., Yan R., Pounder D. (2018). Collective leadership: Principals’ decision influence and the supportive or inhibiting decision influence of other stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 216–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17723427
Google Scholar
Pereira D. G., Afonso A., Medeiros F. M. (2015). Overview of Friedman’s test and post-hoc analysis. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 44(10), 2636–2653. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2014.931971
Google Scholar
Robinson V. M., Lloyd C. A., Rowe K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
Google Scholar
Roch C. H., Sai N. (2018). Stay or go? Turnover in CMO, EMO and regular charter schools. Social Science Journal, 55(3), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.02.016
Google Scholar
Ronfeldt M., Farmer S. O., McQueen K., Grissom J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
Google Scholar
Rorrer A. K., Skrla L., Scheurich J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962
Google Scholar
Seawell M., Alessi B.(2018). Denver’s luminary learning network shows how innovation zones can work for teachers, students, and families. https://www.the74million.org/article/denvers-luminary-learning-network-shows-how-innovation-zones-can-work-for-teachers-students-and-families/
Google Scholar
Sebastian J., Huang H., Allensworth E. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/688169
Google Scholar
Sheppard B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325–344.
ISI
Google Scholar
Spillane J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Strunk K. O., Marsh J. A., Hashim A. K., Bush-Mecenas S. (2016). Innovation and a return to the status quo: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549–577. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716642517
Google Scholar
Torres A. C. (2014). “Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-examining teacher autonomy and turnover in charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 124. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22.1614
Google Scholar
Torres A. C. (2016). Is this work sustainable? Teacher turnover and perceptions of workload in charter management organizations. Urban Education, 51(8), 891–914.
Google Scholar
Torres A.C., Bulkley K., Hashim A., Marsh J., Woodward S., Strunk K.S., Harris D. (April, 2018). From Central Office to Portfolio Manager: System Change through the Mechanisms of the Portfolio Management Model. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting: New York, NY.
Google Scholar
Torres A. C., Bulkley K., McCotter S. (2018). Learning to Lead in Externally Managed and Standalone Charter Schools: How Principals Perceive Their Preparation and Support. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1450994
Google Scholar
Torres D. G. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers’ job satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001
Google Scholar
Tushman M., Maclay C., Herman K. (2016). Denver public schools 2015: Innovation and performance. http://pelp.fas.harvard.edu/files/hbs-test/files/pel076p2.pdf
Google Scholar
Urick A. (2016). Examining US principal perception of multiple leadership styles used to practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0088
Google Scholar
Urick A., Bowers A. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 96–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13489019
Google Scholar
Weiss C. H., Cambone J., Wyeth A. (1992). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflicts in shared decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X92028003007
Google Scholar
Wood D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699–739.
Crossref
ISI
Google Scholar
Yin R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Google Scholar

Biographies

A. Chris Torres is an assistant professor of K-12 Educational Administration at Michigan State University. He studies urban and low-income school improvement efforts related to school choice, leadership, school turnaround, charter schools, and educator retention and turnover.
Katrina Bulkley is professor of Educational Leadership at Montclair State University. She studies educational leadership, policy, and governance change in urban school systems, with a focus on market-based reform ideas.
Taeyeon Kim is a PhD candidate in K-12 educational administration in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Her research interests include leadership development and learning, the intersection of accountability policies and leadership, and the links between education and social change.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 56, Issue 5
Pages: 819 - 855
Article first published online: April 1, 2020
Issue published: December 2020

Keywords

  1. teacher influence
  2. shared leadership
  3. school-wide decision making
  4. instructional leadership
  5. portfolio management models
  6. charter management organizations

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2020.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

A. Chris Torres
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-8597
[email protected]
View all articles by this author
Katrina Bulkley
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7157-2458
View all articles by this author
Taeyeon Kim
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
View all articles by this author

Notes

A. Chris Torres, College of Education, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, Room 433, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Educational Administration Quarterly.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 1275

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 6 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 7

  1. Deeper learning and leadership development in a school–university part...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Organizational Structure, Instructional Quality, and Student Achieveme...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Negotiating Incomplete Autonomy: Portraits from Three School Principal...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Addressing Common Obstacles to Effective Shared Leadership: A Five-Yea...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Troubling Unintended Harm of Heroic Discourses in Social Justice Leade...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

UCEA members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

MEMBERSHIP LOGIN

UCEA members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

MEMBERSHIP LOGIN

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Subscribe to this journal

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text
View full text|Download PDF

Also from Sage