Blazing New Trails - Connexions

238 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
Roles in the organization, ability to communicate, personal motivation or agenda, and
resource control were the most prevalent factors in the study of change to the TLT model that
altered levels of power and influence or shaped perceptions. For this reason, additional
examples and further explanations of each factor connected to the research study were the
next part of the structural description.
Roles in the organization. The concept of roles in the organization had a significant
bearing on my learning in this research as I attempted to navigate the politics of the
organization and work within the established parameters of my own position. These
hierarchical levels within CRISD impacted the change in the TLT model at every incident.
Though literature suggested that alternative leadership styles are becoming more prevalent
and are replacing those historic top-down organizational views (Danielson, 2007), it seemed
that in this change effort, our district was pre-historic. Roles within the organization, whether
formal or informal, consistently determined who would be involved in the change of the TLT
trainings, what I could or could not do in relation to the timeline or budget, and how the
process would be presented to other stakeholders. I often wrote about the number of informal
roles that I was required to play in order to move the change process in one direction or
another.
I was feeling that there was a lack of clarity from the district level about what Teacher
Leaders’ professional development should look like, and vastly different opinions were
communicated by multiple people at the district office. Danielson (2007) and Donaldson and
Sanderson (1996) explained that informal leadership roles also surfaced on school campuses
with teacher leaders. Certain teachers hold a level of respect from their colleagues and though
specific job responsibilities are not defined within these informal roles, they often have a
significant amount of influence over the faculty or staff (Danielson, 2007). My personal
experience with informal roles in the district compared to communications from my teacher
leaders about their informal roles. Even though they were identified on campus formally, they
were functioning in many informal roles for those they served. I was forced to look critically
at who I most needed to listen to in order to determine my next step in the change process
(Danielson, 2007). In most cases, the formal role in the organization made that determination.
In essence, the more elevated in the hierarchy, the more power over the change process one
had.
The TLT meetings at this point were not listed on the district level meeting agendas
and, therefore, were viewed as a success so far. However, it was evident from this exchange
that there was some surprise that the training was being looked upon favorably. Because the
model was “off of the respective district radar,” I was able to move more smoothly within the
change of the TLT trainings for the second semester.
Informal connections with people and inside information allowed me to navigate
effectively and get things to progress more quickly (Danielson, 2007). This navigation
exemplified when it was time to plan trainings during the spring semester that would require
the help of some alternate departments. My informal role and personal relationships with
members of certain departments allowed me to schedule trainers very quickly wherein if I had
utilized the formal communication process, I would most likely still be waiting for those
trainings to be scheduled. Personal connections or relationships that were built informally
eased the lines of communication necessary to make decisions quickly and efficiently.
Clearly, the informal roles in the organization had a significant impact on the TLT training.
Oftentimes, in the course of the study, the formal or informal role in the organization was