View/Open - Drake University

Tr~~chc~..~. Teacher-leadel-s were critical in the grassroots implementaL,,,, c,,,,ts and
modelinp and encouraging colleagues. Teachers led much of the ground ]eve]
illlple~iientati~~i charge. Many felt a sense of enipowerment and ownership as thev had been
in\ri[ed to senrc on some of each district's earliest ventures into school improvement.
"Success breeds success," stated a currjculum director. She continued, "We try to recognize
cI1el.s nvho are doins good things and use them as examples for others to follow. We're not
big enough to have lead teachers. Here we are all lead teachers." The natural associations in
small schools seem 10 support McLaughlin's (1998) contention that "the relationships among
teachers and the or_ranizational conditions that support discourse and strong community" are
ential to making reform work. Teachers in these schools, in McLaughlin's words, had the
-'opportunity to talk together. understand each others' practice. and move as a community to
Under girding the discourse in small districts was the reality that "it is difficult to
hiclc." :I\ an clcmcnrury te;icher put it. "I wouldn't call it peer pressure. But if everybody
clw i\ on hoard u ith an ide:~. \j.e do try to encourage others to come on board with us." Staff
fell ;I rc\pon\ihilitv ro the district and to each other to not only model appropriate behavion,
hi11 10 cncourarc colleacues ro tnr ne\v things. This context created an upward spiral that. as
SlcL:luFhlin ( 1987) \urces[ed, . L moti\-ated
well (p. 174).
individuals generally make efforts to do their jobs
The districts amere proud that [hey had heen chosen as pan of this study. They saw this
2s ~:ilida~ion for not only their current efforts. hut dso the work that had heen done
pre\.iouslY. Sevcr:ll nvondered loud about "other schools" lvho they viewed as not tmly