The effect of school-leader support and participation in decision making on teacher collaboration in Dutch primary and secondary schools

Abstract

Over the last three decades, the concept of teacher collaboration has been embraced as a promising concept in the sphere of educational policy and educational research. Teacher collaboration is now considered crucial to strengthening the position of teachers, shaping their professional space and improving their professionalism. However, the concept of teacher collaboration lacks consensus: both its definitions and its purpose are the subject of discussion and criticism. Against this background, we present a theoretical and empirical analysis of teacher collaboration. We carried out secondary analyses on existing data from a large quantitative study conducted in primary schools (n = 271) and secondary schools (n = 343) to examine the extent to which teachers collaborate and to identify organizational characteristics and teachers’ personal characteristics that affect teacher collaboration. The models we developed using structural equation modelling reveal that teacher collaboration in primary schools is influenced by the extent to which teachers perceive school-leader support, teachers’ satisfaction concerning their participation in decision making and teachers’ orientation towards student performance. The model for secondary schools is more straightforward: only perceived school-leader support directly influences teacher collaboration.

Keywords

Teacher collaboration school leader teacher empowerment comparative study

Introduction

Over the last decade, concerns have been raised in the Netherlands about the position of teachers, the forthcoming shortage of teachers, the quality of teaching and the scope of teachers’ professional autonomy (Education Council, 2007; OECD, 2005). These issues fit into a larger set of concerns about the quality of education. The Netherlands is not alone in this, as the enhancement of educational quality and of school governance are prominent topics on the agendas of both policy makers and researchers (Figazollo, 2009; Janssens and Noorlander, 2010; McAdams, 2006; OECD, 2005; Rizvi and Lingard, 2009). A review of policy initiatives and documents reveals that teacher collaboration is considered a crucial element in providing possibilities for change, school restructuring and teachers’ professional development.

Teacher collaboration is receiving attention in several strands of educational research. It is presented in school effectiveness literature as a central component in the sustainability of school improvement, as it is important to the work of teachers and to the achievements of students (Admiraal and Lockhorst, 2010; Bezzina, 2006; Levine and Marcus, 2010). From the angle of school organization and school management literature, teacher collaboration is seen as a vehicle to forge a closer connection between the teaching profession and the school organization (Adler et al., 2008; Hargreaves, 1994). As the concept of teacher collaboration is used in a variety of research strands (Lavié (2006) even speaks of ‘discourses’), it is not surprising that the concept is not always clearly or univocally defined. More important here is to note that teacher collaboration is not considered an end in itself, as it is often presented as a vehicle for change, a prerequisite for improvement or – from a more critical perspective – as a way to address discussions on teaching practice, schooling and education.

As such, teacher collaboration is often considered an intermediate variable in research instead of the main subject of study (e.g. Ten Bruggencate, 2009; Visscher and Witziers, 2004). We consequently lack knowledge about the extent to which teachers collaborate. In the 1990s, teacher collaboration was the subject of research in both primary and secondary education in the Netherlands. The research by Bakkenes (1996) and Bakkenes and colleagues (1999) at eight primary schools is of importance here, as it revealed different levels of collaboration in primary school and interaction between the characteristics of the school organization and those of individual teachers with respect to the content and extent of teacher collaboration. The research by van Wessum (1997), Reezigt (1997), Witziers (1992) and Witziers and colleagues (1999) show that at secondary schools, departments serve as important platforms for collaboration and shared decision making. Van Wessum (1997) found that the characteristics of the subject taught influenced not only the amount and form of collaboration (Witziers, 1992), but also the teachers’ perception of professionalism. Van Wessum (1997) also found that the most collaboration occurred between teachers who taught the same year and level, and that the collaboration was aimed directly at working in the classroom. These findings – as well as the renewed attention to teacher collaboration in educational policy and the attempts to strengthen the position of teachers – beg the question: what is the current state of affairs concerning teacher collaboration in primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands?

The existence of a large dataset on the extent to which Dutch teachers have a voice in their schools and on their level of work satisfaction (ResearchNed, 2009) allowed us to investigate the status quo of teacher collaboration in the Netherlands by conducting secondary analyses. Our research project examined the extent to which Dutch teachers collaborate in primary and secondary schools, and whether characteristics at the level of individual teachers (e.g. age, gender, years in service) and school size affect the extent to which teachers collaborate. To this end, we formulated the following central research question: to what extent do teachers in primary and secondary schools collaborate, and which school and teacher characteristics affect their collaboration?

We also formulated three underlying research questions: do teachers in primary and secondary schools collaborate and, if so, to what extent? How do teachers perceive school-leader support and their participation in decision making? And do the perceptions that teachers have of school-leader support and their participation in decision making affect their collaboration?

Policy background

In recent decades, theoretical and empirical notions of school reform and school improvement have received considerable attention in many western European countries. Interest in these issues was triggered in the Netherlands when in the 1980s and 1990s the national government started to favour policies of deregulation and school autonomy (Karstanje, 2000; Hooge, 1998). After more than two decades of school reform and deregulation policies, Dutch school boards in primary and secondary education now have a wide scope for policy-making (Hooge and Honingh, 2004; Hooge, 1998). School boards are supposed to develop and implement strategic policy, to address societal and political agendas, and – last but not least – to take responsibility for stimulating and improving school quality. As the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s prompted the restructuring and reorganization of schools, administrative mergers and the introduction of additional management layers covering a number of schools have impeded the original governmental transformations from increasing the autonomy of school-leaders and teachers. Moreover, and contrary to the goals of deregulation and school autonomy policies, over the last 20 years the central government has decreased the autonomy within schools with respect to educational content (and to learning and teaching objectives) by issuing more regulations (Honingh and Karstanje, 2007; Klaassen, 2000; Author, 1998). Against this background, concerns have increasingly been raised with regard to the position of teachers, the forthcoming shortage of teachers, the quality of teaching and the scope of teachers’ professional autonomy (OECD, 2005; Education Council, 2007).

To tackle the concerns regarding the teaching profession, in 2007 the Minister of Education established a temporary committee (the Teachers’ Committee) to advise on ways to strengthen the position of teachers and the teaching profession. Almost all members of the committee had at least some teaching experience (sitting on the committee were the chair of the Social Economic Council, the chair of the Educational Council, full professors, teachers and school directors). In its report titled ‘Teacher Power!’ (Teachers’ Committee, 2007), the committee assigns high priority to the professional space of Dutch teachers and advocates granting teachers more control over educational matters and more participation in school decision making.

Soon after the committee’s report was published, the educational social partners (teachers’ unions, the General Union of Education Personnel, school board organizations and the Department of Education) concluded an agreement that states, amongst other things, that the professional space of Dutch teachers needs to be legally enshrined. In response, the government has made efforts to strengthen the position of teachers by providing additional funding and implementing a programme that enhances teacher professionalism by stimulating teachers to collaborate and to participate in decision making. The Department of Education recently made provisions for the legal enshrinement of the professional space of Dutch teachers by preparing legislative changes to sustain teachers’ positions and to enhance their professional position (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2009–2010). Teacher collaboration appears to be an important starting point in this legalizing process, as the policy memorandum (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2009–2010) emphasizes that teachers shape their professional space in collaboration with colleagues and in consultation with their management and board. Here, it is important to note the top-down character of policies that attempt to strengthen the position of teachers and the teaching profession. These attempts can also be seen as a joint venture of policy makers, administrators, teachers’ unions, governors and school-leaders. Moreover, and despite the characteristic of a joint venture, it remains important that the here presented attempts might also cause some negative side effects and tensions. In the theory section we show that autonomy and increased ownership on the level of teachers turn out to be crucial factors to enhance teacher collaboration (e.g. Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000; Hoyle and John, 1995). Consequently, policy makers should be aware or the fact that a centralized approach might enhance as well as marginalize the existing structures that enable teacher collaboration and professionalism.

Theoretical background

Here, we first elaborate on the concept of teacher collaboration – our endogenous variable – by exploring various discourses on teacher collaboration. We then define the other key concepts of this study, namely school-leader support and participation in decision making.

Teacher collaboration

Teacher collaboration has been the subject of research since the early 1980s (e.g. Hargreaves, 1994; Lavié, 2006). Researchers have addressed teacher collaboration as a promising concept from various starting points and at various levels of analysis. In his review study, Lavié (2006) presents five discourses that have taken up the issue teacher collaboration:

The cultural discourse, which studies teacher collaboration as a cultural phenomenon. The focus is on the more personal and informal qualities of collaborative relationships, and on the assumptions and beliefs that underpin them.

The school effectiveness and improvement discourse, which refers to teacher collaboration in terms of consensus and shared vision as a condition for increasing learning performance as a factor of school effectiveness and school improvement.

The community discourse, which positions teacher collaboration in the vision of schools as communities, ‘where contractual models of relationships are transcended in pursuit of more inclusive, humanizing environments’. Here, consensus and similarity of goals, values and beliefs are seen as a necessary condition for teacher collaboration.

The restructuring discourse, which sees teachers as ‘new professionals’ capable of getting involved in collaborative practices within an ‘ever-learning organization’. It argues for expanding teachers’ roles and responsibilities beyond the classroom and for perceiving teaching as a collegial activity.

The critical discourse, which refers to teacher collaboration as a process of problematizing the aims of teaching and the collaborative work itself, including a notion of schools as critical collaborative communities.

These discourses refer to different ways of conceptualizing teacher collaboration and also consider divergent aims, interests and purposes of teacher collaboration. The school effectiveness and improvement discourse, for example, indicates that teacher collaboration is a factor for school effectiveness and school improvement (Scheerens, 2007; Scheerens and Bosker, 1997; Ten Bruggencate, 2009; Visscher and Witziers, 2004). According to Lavié (2006), both discourses are characterized by a ‘managerialist perspective of culture’, as teacher collaboration is seen as a product of cultural management led by school-leaders. These discourses strongly contrast with the cultural discourse, which focuses on collective responsibility and a collaborative culture as a cultural phenomenon. Compared with the cultural discourse, the community discourse takes a more critical perspective, as it can be interpreted as an antidote to bureaucratic, managerially inspired discourses. The community discourse focuses on social and professional relationships inside schools and between schools and their environment from an ecological perspective (e.g. Shields, 2001). Finally, the restructuring discourse seems to combine two aims: it tries to restructure the teaching practice by enhancing teacher involvement and collaboration, and to stimulate professionalism via teacher collaboration (e.g. Hargreaves, 1994; Hoyle, 1995).

As the lines between the discourses are not always clearly drawn, there is overlap and interrelatedness between the discourses. The restructuring and community discourses take organization or management ideologies as a starting point to stress the need for teacher collaboration. In this context, it is important to refer to the concept of new professionalism (Adler et al., 2008; Caldwell and Spinks, 1998; Hoyle, 1995, 2001; Hargreaves, 1994; Noordegraaf, 2007), which fits in the above-described restructuring and community discourses. New professionalism defines the teaching profession in terms of organizational context (Honingh and Hooge, 2009). In fact, it turns the teaching profession into ‘an organizational profession that primarily faces organizational control’ (Noordegraaf, 2007, p. 763; see also: Evetts, 2009). New professionalism stresses the connection between the teaching profession and the school organization by stating that ‘there is little significant school development without teacher development and vice versa’ (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 436). The ideal of new professionalism replaces the traditional autonomous expertise with inter-professional collaboration and shared responsibility, but favours the traditional service ideal by emphasizing learning outcomes. Collective, as opposed to individual, professional autonomy has become a central feature.

However, the concept of new professionalism has also been criticized. Stronach and Maclure (1997) argue that the new managerial structures serve to deprofessionalize rather than empower the teaching profession, and that by no means all teacher development needs can be located in or arise from institutional contexts. In addition, Evetts (2009) states that the renewed appeal to professionalism can be seen as a powerful mechanism for occupational change and control, while it remains unclear whether the suggested changes would contribute to improvements and increase the quality of services. Hoyle (2001) also argues that there is no indication that new professionalism would improve the prestige, status or esteem of teaching as an occupation.

Another key concept in the discourse on teacher collaboration is the professional learning community (PLC) (Lavié, 2006). This concept also emerges mainly in the restructuring and community discourses. ‘A PLC is a collaborative context where teachers get involved in common work, share a range of norms, values, visions and beliefs concerning themselves, their students and teaching and are organized on collaborative cultures and structures that enhance interdependence’ (Lavié, 2006, p. 784). PLCs are characterized by such attributes as shared beliefs, values and vision, shared and supportive leadership, supportive structural conditions, peer sharing and collective learning (DuFour, 2004; Merriman Bausmith and Barry, 2011; Seashore Louis et al., 1995; Stoll et al., 2006). The aspect of learning is introduced because it is connected to the concept of organizational learning (Kruse, 2001; Lavié, 2006; Levine and Marcus, 2010). Nevertheless, scholarship delivers critical remarks on the feasibility of PLCs. There is limited empirical evidence for their impact on student achievement (Saunders et al., 2009; Visscher and Witziers, 2004). Moreover, in the literature there is substantial variation in definitions and practices of teacher learning teams or communities (Dufour, 2004; Vescio et al., 2008).

To resume, teacher collaboration is not a clear, univocally defined term. Both its definitions and its purpose are far from homogenous, not least because it is associated with different educational and political ideologies. Moreover, teacher collaboration is the subject of discussion and criticism. An important critique is that a caricature is created by associating teacher autonomy and privacy with conventionalism and a resistance to change that should be overcome by school-based teacher collaboration. Little (1990) pointed out that collaboration is a problematic issue with regard to the effectiveness of teacher dialogue and collaboration in influencing individual practice in the classroom. Scholarship shows that both teacher collaboration and teacher autonomy are important for teaching practice: both professional interdependency and room for individual autonomy and discretionary judgement are important (Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000; Fullan, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994; Hoyle and John, 1995; Little, 1990; Seashore Louis and Smith, 1990).

A second criticism concerns the definition of teacher collaboration. Is teacher collaboration about discussing and observing the acts of others, or is it about acting together, jointly executing the teaching practice? In other words: collaboration can be quite simple – for example, talking and making agreements – or more advanced, for instance helping and doing joint work (Little, 1990; van Wessum, 1997). Gates and Robinson (2009: 151) state that teacher collaboration most often takes place away from teaching practice; it is characteristic that ‘teachers usually meet at a time and place apart from their actual engagement in order to collaborate, instead of engaging in shared practice in each others’ presence’.

The third critical note is related to micro-politics in schools (Hoyle, 1986). Although many discourses on teacher collaboration stress consensus, shared vision and goals, teacher collaboration can also be seen as a ‘contested terrain where educational values and goals, role expectations, and power relationships are fought over’ (Lavié, 2006: 788). Grossman and colleagues (2001) point out that teachers have a mixture of philosophies, educational backgrounds, subject matter commitments, political and religious beliefs, and opinions about students and learning, as well as varying commitments to their own learning. Micro-political processes can open up or put an end to discussions on certain aspects of teachers’ work (Little, 2002; Stoll et al., 2006). Most schools develop norms of privacy, autonomy, conflict avoidance and non-interference. These norms can undermine teachers’ collaboration. ‘Teachers need permission and requirements to de-privatize their own practice and take collective responsibility for others’ work’ (Levine and Marcus, 2010: 396).

From a micro-political perspective, it is also argued that teacher collaboration and empowerment are actually managerial and organizational control ‘in disguise’ (Hargreaves, 1994; Lavié, 2006). In this sense, it seems that the purpose of collaboration is to deprofessionalize rather than empower the teaching profession, as Stronach and Maclure (1997) stated when criticizing ‘new professionalism’.

A final criticism is the viewpoint of Lavié (2006) concerning the purpose of teacher collaboration. Lavié argues that collaboration is approached not as a valuable end in itself, but as a tool for educational improvement, effective teaching and learning processes, or as a tool for establishing social relationships that are underpinned by democratic and social justice values. He joins the critical discourses described above by taking the position that teacher collaboration should be a process of questioning the values that underlie teaching and student learning, instead of a technology for improving teaching and learning within conventional definitions of schooling.

Definition of teacher collaboration

The theoretical and empirical insights into teacher collaboration reveal that both its definitions and its purpose are far from homogenous. Teacher collaboration can be found in relatively simple interactions as well as in more advanced interactions such as joint teaching. In this paper, aiming to present the state of affairs concerning teacher collaboration the focus is on an initial stage of teacher collaboration. In doing so we conceive teacher collaboration in the sense that it involves serious intellectual interaction between teachers concerning issues of curriculum and instruction. We operationalize teacher collaboration by items such as the following three: ‘In my school, we agree that good teaching involves teamwork’. ‘My colleagues and I try to improve the educational quality through joint discussions’. ‘In my school, teachers make a habit of visiting each other’s classes. (see Appendix 1 and Table 6 for more items). We assume that these items represent a form of teacher collaboration that can be seen as a first step towards the true deprivatization of individual teaching practice.

School-leader support

School-leaders play a central role in directly supporting, challenging and encouraging teachers to collaborate, in addition to their indirect efforts to cultivate the internal conditions necessary for teacher collaboration (Bezzina, 2006; Gates and Robinson, 2009; Hulpia and Devos, 2010; Stoll et al., 2006). Research on school effectiveness has shown that school-leadership has indirect effects on student learning performance through various characteristics of organizational structure and culture, along with other intermediate factors (ten Bruggencate, 2009; Witziers et al., 2003). In a broad study conducted amongst Dutch secondary schools, ten Bruggencate (2009) identifies one of these intermediate factors as a developmental school culture centred on teacher collaboration, professionalization and innovation.

Leadership appears to be an important resource for teacher collaboration, as school-leaders set the conditions, albeit with some resistance. Stoll and colleagues (2006) state that although school-leaders can create conditions that foster collaboration, they cannot ensure that teachers will collaborate. Bezzina (2006) argues that a general problem regarding school-leader support for teacher collaboration is that the increasing number of administrative and management duties that are being assigned to school-leaders apparently limits the time that they can devote to sustaining teacher collaboration in their schools.

Definition of school-leader support

We define support from school-leaders as the extent to which teachers perceive that their school leader makes clear decisions, takes seriously the judgements of teachers, and stimulates teachers to learn and develop professionally (see Appendix 1 and Table 6).

Participation in decision making

Participation in decision making has been of critical concern to educators for decades. In the 1980s, enhanced teacher involvement in decision making was advocated as a way to foster the organizational, curricular and instructional changes necessary to improve the quality of education. The basic assumption was that lasting school improvement will occur when teachers become more involved in school-based decision making (Rice and Schneider, 1994). In the 1990s, participation in decision making was included in school effectiveness and school improvement research, under the assumption that it would reduce tensions between teachers and administrators and improve the teaching and learning processes. In the late 1990s, the participation of teachers was related to the concept of distributed leadership, in the sense of ‘the informal contribution of all school team members in the decision-making process of the school […] school-leaders should provide leadership while operating under a participative and collaborative arrangement that actively seeks to involve various individuals from the school community in the decision-making process’ (Hulpia et al., 2009: 3). In line with the focus on formal and informal leadership, both formal and informal participation in decision making are taken into account in this field of research. Despite contradictory research results, a positive relationship has been found between participation in decision making and organizational commitment. It is important to bear in mind that this relationship depends on the areas in which teachers have influence, their acceptance of participation opportunities, the organization of such opportunities and whether teachers have an influence on the results of the decision-making process (Hulpia and Devos, 2010). Distinct domains of decision making – such as the personnel, curriculum and instructional, and administrative domains – have been found to influence the willingness to participate in decision making (Hooge, 1998; Conley, 1991; Smylie, 1992).

To sum up, teachers’ participation in decision making is thought to promote their commitment to the decisions that are made and to increase their motivation to implement them, their satisfaction, their loyalty and their decision acceptance and their collaboration (Hulpia et al., 2009; Ingersoll, 1996; Mayrowetz et al., 2007; Smylie, 1992; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Wahlstrom and Seashore Louis, 2008). Thus, we expected participation in school-based curricular and instructional decisions to have a positive effect on teacher collaboration.

Definition of participation in decision making

Research shows that teachers tend to express greater expectations for and desire to participate in decisions related to classroom instruction, and to express lower expectations for and desire to participate in administrative and managerial decisions (Conley, 1991). Geijsel and colleagues (2009) argue that if teachers participate in decision making on issues that are strongly related to teaching and student learning, the process might provide standards that teachers can use to evaluate their own practice and might help to clarify instructional goals; in other words, it might promote teaching and learning processes (Geijsel et al., 2009). We therefore focused on participation in decision making on critical issues that directly affect teachers’ work and operationalized it as actual participation in school-based curricular and instructional decision making.

The general lack of effectiveness of participation reported in the literature addresses questions of the genuineness of participation in decision making (Taylor and Bogotch, 1994; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). For this reason, we included teachers’ satisfaction with the extent to which they participate in decision making in the definition of ‘participation in decision making’.

Finally, we expected that teachers who are accustomed to formalization of their roles and responsibilities concerning participation in decision making, are more willing to collaborate with colleagues.

To sum up, participation in decision making was operationalized in this study by three variables: actual participation in decision making, satisfaction concerning participation in decision making, and formalization of teacher participation in decision making (see Appendix 1 and Table 6).

Method

To investigate in more depth the effect of support from school-leaders and participation in decision making on teacher collaboration, we conducted secondary analyses on a large dataset on the extent to which Dutch teachers have a voice in their schools and their level of work satisfaction (ResearchNed, 2009) using structural equation modelling (SEM). In this section, we present and amplify the characteristics of the sample, the endogenous and exogenous variables, the explanatory variables, the hypothetical model and the use of SEM.

Sample

As part of a broad study on the extent to which Dutch teachers have a voice in their schools, data were collected from teachers in primary and secondary schools, the vocational education and training (VET) sector, and the higher vocational education sector. Each participant completed a digital self-completion questionnaire in May 2009. Through random selection, 5276 teachers were invited to participate; a total of 1708 teachers completed and returned the questionnaires, thus generating a response rate of 32.4%.

We included in our analyses only teachers in primary and secondary schools. Teachers in the VET sector and in the higher vocational education sector were excluded, as the nature of vocational education differs fundamentally from that of schools for primary and secondary education, due to the apprenticeships and company training that form an integral part of vocational training.

To determine the representativeness of our sample, we compared it with the population of Dutch primary and secondary teachers according to age and gender. This comparison revealed the need to calculate a weighting factor. Teachers younger than 35 and those working in primary schools were under-represented in our sample, particularly amongst female teachers, while teachers above the age of 56 were over-represented, particularly amongst male teachers working in secondary schools. Completed questionnaires were returned by 271 primary teachers and 343 secondary teachers. Responses in which only a few items were missing were retained for data analysis after using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm to address the problem of missing items.

The primary school sample comprised 64 male and 204 female teachers (three respondents did not answer the question regarding gender). The average age of the teachers was 46.5 (SD = 11.1); 22% were younger than 35, 52% were aged between 36 and 55, and 27% were older than 56. At the time the questionnaire was administered, the respondents had an average length of service of 13.3 years in their current positions (SD = 10.9) and an average of 20.2 years of service in the teaching profession (SD = 11.8). Of these respondents, 16% had contracts that included time for management tasks, and 29% of the teachers were members of the representative advisory bodies of their schools. Of the teachers, 20% were working in schools with fewer than 150 pupils, 42% in schools with 150–250 pupils, 32% in schools with 250–500 pupils and 6% in schools with more than 500 pupils. The second method of determining school size was based on the number of schools falling within the jurisdiction of a particular school board. Only 5% of the teachers reported that their school board was responsible for only one school. In 6% of the cases, the boards carried responsibility for either two or three schools. Of the teachers 3% reported that their boards were responsible for either four or five schools; 21% of the respondents reported that their boards were responsible for 6–10 schools and 64% of the respondents had boards that were responsible for more than 10 schools. Of the respondents 2% reported that they did not know the answer to this question.

The secondary school sample comprised 182 male and 155 female teachers. The average age of the teachers was 48.6 (SD = 10.9); 16% of the teachers were younger than 35, 50% were aged between 36 and 55, and 34% were older than 56. At the time the questionnaire was administered, the responding teachers had an average length of service of 12.7 years (SD = 11.0) in their current positions and an average of 19.5 years of service in the teaching profession (SD = 12.0). Of the teachers included in this sample, 14% had contracts that included time for management tasks and 7% were members of the representative advisory bodies of their schools. Of the teachers 11% were working in schools with fewer than 300 pupils, 23% in schools with 300–600 pupils, 42% in schools with 600–1499 pupils and 24% in schools with more than 1500 pupils. The second method of determining school size was based on the number of schools falling within the jurisdiction of a particular school board. Of the teachers, 18% reported that their school boards were responsible for only one school. In 9%of the cases, the boards carried responsibility for two schools, and 70% of the responding teachers stated that their boards were responsible for three or more schools. Of the teachers, 2% reported that they did not know the answer to this question.

Endogenous and exogenous variables

In our conceptual framework, we distinguished ‘teacher collaboration’ (TC) as the endogenous (dependent) variable. This variable was represented by six items, with Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.73 for primary teachers and 0.72 for secondary teachers (see Appendix 1, Table 6). In Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS 18), which was used in this study, we also carried out a factor analysis to evaluate whether the items measure the hypothesized latent variable. These scores, presented as standardized regression weights, ranged from .50 to .85 for primary teachers and from .33 to .75 for secondary teachers. These items were presented to the respondents in the form of propositions. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the items described their own behaviour according to a five-point (range 1–5) response scale.

The exogenous (independent) variables included in the analyses were ‘teachers’ perceptions of support from their school-leaders’ (PSLS) and ‘participation in decision making’ (PDM). As PDM covers three aspects – namely ‘actual participation in decision making’ (APDM), ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ (SPDM) and ‘formalization of participation in decision making (F) – it was necessary to measure three distinct concepts. Each of these variables was represented by multiple items (5–8; see Appendix 1, Table 6). The items of the variables (APDM) and (SPDM) were presented to the respondents in the form of propositions. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the items described their own behaviour according to a five-point response scale (range 1–5). For the variable (F) we calculated the scale score by counting up the scores of the 8 items (per item 0 ‘formalized', 1 ‘not formalized'). All scales of the exogenous variables had Cronbach’s alpha scores of .66 or higher. In AMOS 18, the standardized regression weights of the items ranged from .33 to .88.

Background variables

We also controlled for the effects of teacher characteristics and some school characteristics. The personal characteristics of teachers that were included in the analysis are age in years, gender, years of service in current position, years of service in the teaching profession, responsibility for management duties and membership in the representative advisory body of the school. For gender, management duties, and membership in the representative advisory body we used dummies (0 for woman and 1 for man, 0 for not having management duties and 1 for management duties, 0 for not being a member of the representative body and 1 for membership). The scores of the other variables such as age, years of service in current position, years of service in the teaching profession were measured in years (see sample).

As a personal characteristic of the respondents, the scale ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ (TOSP) was included in the study (see Appendix 1, Table 1 and Table 6). The school characteristics we controlled for consider the school size. Two indicators were used to determine the size of a school: the number of students and the number of schools under a board.

Table 1.

Average scores of the latent variables.

		Primary schools (N = 271)	Secondary schools (N = 343)
Teacher Collaboration		3.56 (SD = 0.71)	3.25 (SD = 0.65)
Perceived school-leader support (5-point scale; range 1 to 5)		3.49 (SD = 0.84)	3.19 (SD = 0.89)
Participation in decision making	Actual participation in decision making (measured on a 5-point scale; range 1 to 5)	3.17 (SD = 0.68)	3.33 (SD = 0.56)
	Satisfaction with participation in decision making (measured on a 5-point scale; range 1 to 5)	3.79 (SD = 0.68)	3.82 (SD = 0.65)
	Formalization of participation in decision making (scores are calculated on base of 8 items and range from 0 (high level of formalization) to 8 (low level of formalization)	1.46 (SD = 2.49)	2.04 (SD = 2.40)
Teacher’s orientation towards student performance (TOSP) (measured on a 5-point scale; range 1 to 5)		3.91 (SD = 0.63)	3.34 (SD = 0.77)

Hypothetical model

Our hypothetical model is presented in Figure 1. The three arrows illustrate the direct effects on teacher collaboration that we expected to find. The exogenous and endogenous variables are presented within ovals. Because these variables represent latent constructs measured by more than one item, AMOS considers them unobserved variables. The background variables are presented in a rectangular box.

Figure 1.

Hypothetical model.

Structural equation modelling

We used SEM to test our theoretical propositions regarding the empirical relationships between the constructs of participation in decision making, school-leader support and teacher collaboration. We also examined the directionality of significant relationships in order to answer our research questions. In the analyses, we started with a ‘full model’ that included all of the variables presented in our theoretical framework. The variables gender, management tasks and membership in the school’s advisory body were included in the analysis as dummies. We used a stepwise procedure to trim the model, excluding the non-significant variances and predictors with non-significant regression coefficients one at a time. AMOS 18.0 was used for this. The robustness of the theoretical model was evaluated according to (1) the appropriateness of the direction, strength and significance of parameter estimates, (2) various statistical tests and fit indices, including a chi-square test of fit (χ2), the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and (3) the model’s ability to explain the variance (R ²) of satisfaction in both teacher samples. Hox (2002) argues the importance of including more than one goodness-of-fit index and selecting indices that are based on different principles. Hu and Bentler (1999) and Yu (2002) prefer the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative fit index (CFI) and RMSEA for one-time analyses. Schreiber and colleagues (2006) identify the RMSEA as a suitable index for evaluating the fit of a model. This index is based on the difference between the predicted and observed covariances while controlling for the complexity of the model. In general, smaller RMSEA scores indicate better fit. The following is a general threshold guideline for accepting a model: RMSEA < .06–.08.

Results

Our central research question was: to what extent do teachers in primary and secondary schools collaborate, and which school and teacher characteristics affect this collaboration? We address this here by taking up the three underlying questions. We first discuss the question whether teachers in primary and secondary schools collaborate and, if so, to what extent. The second question concerns whether and, if so, to what extent teachers perceive school-leader support and participation in decision making. The third question concerns whether the perceptions that teachers have of school-leader support and their participation in decision making influence their level of collaboration.

First, our data indicate that teachers in Dutch primary and secondary schools do collaborate (see Table 1). A t-test was conducted to compare differences between the mean scores of teacher collaboration in primary schools (3.56 measured on a five-point scale, range 1–5, SD = 0.71) and in secondary education (3.25 measured on a five-point scale, range 1–5, SD = 0.65). The t-test showed that the mean score on teacher collaboration in primary schools was significantly higher than that of teachers in secondary schools (p < 0.005).

Table 1 also shows the mean scores on school-leader support and the three dimensions of participation in decision making as perceived by teachers in primary and secondary education. T-tests were conducted to compare the differences between these mean scores (p < 0.005) in both types of education. These tests showed that the mean scores on these concepts differ significantly.

Moreover, the data show that all teachers in primary and secondary schools perceive a certain level of support from their school-leaders (see Table 1). Interestingly, primary teachers reported higher scores (3.49 measured on a five-point scale, range 1–5, SD = 0.84) than their colleagues in secondary schools (3.19, SD = 0.89). Table 1 also shows that all teachers perceive quite a high level of participation in decision making and that they are quite satisfied with the extent to which they participate in it.

Secondary teachers reported higher scores than primary teachers on the ‘actual participation in decision making’ scale (3.33, SD = 0.56 compared with 3.17, SD = 0.68, measured on a five-point scale, range 1–5). T-test revealed that the differences between the mean scores are significant (p < 0.005).

Secondary teachers also seem more satisfied than primary teachers with their participation in decision making, although the differences in the mean scores are not significant (3.82, SD = 0.65 compared with 3.79, SD = 0.68, measured on a five-point scale, range 1–5). Table 1 furthermore shows that ‘formalization of participation in decision making’ at primary and secondary schools is relatively high. The scores on this variable range from 0 (a high level of formalization) to 8 (a low level of formalization).We notice a difference between teachers in primary and secondary schools, as teachers in primary education are slightly more likely to report that participation in decision making is formalized (1.46, SD = 2.49) than teachers in secondary schools (2.04, SD = 2.40). A t-test revealed that these differences between mean scores of teachers in primary and secondary education are significant (p < 0.005).

Our third question concerned the effects of the variables ‘perceived support from the school leader’, ‘actual participation in decision making’, ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ and ‘formalization of participation in decision making’ with regard to teacher collaboration. We used SEM to answer this question, trimming the full models following a stepwise procedure excluding the non-significant variances and predictors with non-significant regression effects one at a time. For primary and secondary teachers we generated different models for the two educational sectors. We present these models here, beginning with the model for primary schools (Table 2).

Table 2.

The full model and trimmed model for teachers in primary schools.

	Statistical tests
	χ ² / df	p	RMSEA
Null model	1274.825/535 = 2.383	.000	.072
Model 1	1692.357/ 763 = 2.218	.000	.067

Primary schools

Evidence emerged in support of the trimmed model and its robustness across the sample of teachers in primary schools. ‘Perceived school-leader support’, ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ and ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ have direct effects on teacher collaboration.

The direction, strength and significance of all parameter estimates were consistent with the theory (p < 0.01). Statistical tests and fit indices showed that the trimmed model for primary teachers fits well (χ2 = 1692.357, df = 763, CMIN/DF 2.218 and RMSEA = .067). ‘Perceived school-leader support’ (.36), ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ (.25) and ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ (.29) have direct effects on ‘teacher collaboration’. None of the other variables and predictors turned out to have a direct effect on teacher collaboration such as membership in advisory bodies, age, years of service in current position and school size. The explained variance (R ²) is .51.

Several covariance scores are presented in Table 3. It is important to note that the variables that covary have indirect but significant effects. This table also shows that the exogenous variable ‘actual participation in decision making’ covaries with the presented exogenous variables ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ and ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ that do have an effect on ‘teacher collaboration’ (see Figure 2). The direction of the covariances is positive, except in the case of the variables that covary with the variable ‘formalization of participation in decision making’ (F). A higher score on the scale ‘formalization of participation in decision making’, which implies a low level of formalization, has a negative effect on ‘perceived school-leader support’, ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’ ‘actual participation in decision making’, and lower teacher orientation towards student performance.

Figure 2.

The effects of support from the school leader and teacher empowerment on teacher collaboration in primary schools. The presented weights are standardized regression weights.

Table 3.

Covariance in primary schools.

Covariance	Estimates	SE	CR	P
F←PSLS	−0.44	.013	−3.305	***
F←SPDM	−0.55	.015	−3.584	***
F←APDM	−.036	.014	−2.508	.012
F←TOSP	−.044	.012	−3.777	***
SPDM←PSLS	.313	.045	6.919	***
APDM←PSLS	.203	.036	5.667	***
TOSP←PSLS	.090	.024	3.729	***
APDM←SPDM	.284	.040	7.077	***
TOSP←SPDM	.102	.027	3.822	***
APDM←TOSP	.053	.023	2.299	.022
Gender←Managtask	.025	.009	2.768	.006
Gender←TOSP	−.040	.013	−3.001	.003
Gender←PSLS	.025	.012	1.971	.049
Gender←Age	1.109	.287	3.871	***
Managtask←PSLS	.048	.013	3.613	***
ManagtaskS←APDM	.049	.014	3.516	***

*** Significant at the P<0.01 level.

In addition, Table 3 reveals a negative covariance between the dummy variable ‘gender’ and ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’. This finding implies that female teacher orientation towards student performance is less strong than that of their male colleagues. Positive covariance can be found of gender and carrying out management tasks, perceived school-leader support and age. These findings indicate that male teachers are more positive about the school-leader support they perceive, that they carry out more management tasks and that they are older than their female colleagues. Moreover, the covariances in Table 3 also reveal that carrying out a management task has a positive effect on the ‘perception of school-leader support’ and on the ‘actual participation in decision making’.

Secondary schools

Statistical tests and fit indices show that the trimmed model for secondary schools fits (Table 4). In addition, the trimmed model is a clear improvement over the full model (χ2 = 2052.976, df = 773, CMIN/DF 2.656; RMSEA = .070).

The trimmed modelc (Figure 3) fits the data from secondary schools and shows that ‘perceived school-leader support’ (.68) is the only independent variable that has a direct effect on teacher collaboration. The explained variance (R ²) of teacher collaboration is .46.

Figure 3.

Teacher collaboration in secondary schools.

Several covariance scores for teachers in secondary schools are presented in Table 5. It is important to note that the variables ‘actual participation in decision making’, ‘satisfaction concerning participation in decision making’, ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’, ‘management tasks’ and ‘formalization of participation in decision making’ affect ‘perceived school-leader support’ and therefore indirectly affect the endogenous variable of ‘teacher collaboration’. It is also important to note that the variable ‘formalization of participation in decision making’ has a negative effect on ‘perceived school-leader support’. This implies that the lower level of ‘formalization of participation in decision making’, the less positive teacher perceptions are of the support they receive from their school-leaders.

Table 4.

The full and the trimmed model in secondary schools.

	Statistical tests
	χ ² / df	p	RMSEA
Null model	1325.77/ 315 = 4.209	.000	.097
Model 1	2052.976/ 773 = 2.656	.000	.070

Table 5.

Covariance in secondary schools.

Covariance	Estimates	SE	CR	P
APDM←PSLS	.095	.031	3.101	.002
SPDM←PSLS	.194	.035	5.523	***
TOSP←PSLS	.073	.029	2.504	.012
Managtask←PSLS	.061	.016	3.752	***
F←PSLS	–0.48	.018	−2.638	.008
APDM←SPDM	.181	.026	6.828	***
Gender←Managtask	.015	.009	1.714	.086
Gender←Age	1.226	.301	4.077	***

*** Significant at the P< 0.01 level.

Table 6.

Scale scores.

	Primary education		Secondary education
	Cronbach’s alpha	IC	Cronbach’s alpha	IC
TC	.73	.31	.72	.29
PSLS	.86	.55	.88	.59
APDM	.92	.54	.84	.37
SPDM	.92	.55	.89	.49
F	.89	.51	.85	.42
TOSP	.69	.43	.66	.37

Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha, inter-item correlation (IC).

This table also shows that the variable ‘actual participation in decision making’ affects teachers’ level of satisfaction with the extent to which they participate in decision making. Positive covariance can also be found of gender and carrying out management tasks and age. These findings indicate that male teachers carry out management tasks more often than their female colleagues and that that male teachers are older. Moreover, the covariances in Table 5 also reveal that carrying out a management task has a positive effect on ‘perceived school-leader support’.

Conclusion and discussion

Educational policy documents, theoretical insights and educational research repeatedly indicate that teacher collaboration is a promising concept, as it has the potential to promote school reform, school improvement and professional development. The theoretical reflection on teacher collaboration presented in this study reveals different views on what it is needed for. Most discourses on teacher collaboration do not see teacher collaboration as an end in itself, but as vehicle for change, a prerequisite for improvement or – from a more critical perspective – as a way to address discussions on teaching practice, schooling and education. As a result of these differing viewpoints, the concept of teaching collaboration is far from univocal and is not free from discussion and criticism. These discussions and criticisms, as well as the stress in recent policy documents on the need for teacher collaboration, require a closer examination of the extent to which and conditions under which teachers do collaborate.

We made use of existing data on the voice of teachers in Dutch schools to investigate the extent to and the conditions under which teachers collaborate in primary and secondary schools. We focused primarily on the effects on teacher collaboration of school-leader support and teachers’ participation in decision making, next to other individual and organizational characteristics. Our analyses confirmed that these individual and organizational characteristics do affect teacher collaboration, both directly and indirectly.

Before discussing our findings, two limitations should be considered before interpreting them. Because all the measures were obtained through self-reporting, common method variance is a problem, as are social desirability effects. Although self-report data are commonly used to measure individuals’ self-perceptions, it is important to remember that they may not reflect the actual performance of the respondents. The second limitation concerns the definition and operationalization of teacher collaboration, as the items in the questionnaire did not fully cover the broadness of this complex concept. The measured items emphasized convictions about collaboration, observations and collegial discussions. These aspects were considered a first stage of teacher collaboration.

Our findings show that there are significant differences between primary and secondary schools. First, there is more teacher collaboration in primary schools than in secondary schools. The same applies to perceived support from the school leader: teachers in primary schools perceive more school-leader support than their colleagues in secondary schools. In contrast, secondary teachers reported to participate more in curricular and instructional decision making and to be more satisfied with the extent to which they participate in curricular and instructional decision making than primary teachers.

Second, our results show that individual and organizational characteristics have different effects on teacher collaboration in primary schools than they do in secondary schools. In secondary schools, only the ‘perceived support from the school leader’ directly affects ‘teacher collaboration’. The situation in primary schools appears to be less simple: both ‘satisfaction concerning participation in curricular and instructional decisions’ and ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ have a direct effect on teacher collaboration, in addition to ‘perceived school-leader support’.

Overall, our research shows that teachers who report receiving support from their school-leaders are more likely to engage in collaboration. This is in line with previous findings that school-leaders play a crucial role in supporting, challenging and encouraging teachers to collaborate, in addition to their indirect efforts to cultivate the internal conditions necessary for teacher collaboration (Bezzina, 2006; Gates and Robinson, 2009; Hulpia and Devos, 2010; Smylie, 1992, Stoll et al., 2006). Furthermore, this finding seems to support the idea of Lavié (2006) that teacher collaboration can be seen as a product of cultural management, as teacher collaboration is effected by perceived school-leader support.

Deeper reflection upon the models that were developed for primary and secondary education suggests that the specific nature of the teaching practice and the organizational culture and structure in primary and secondary education might account for the different dynamics revealed by the models. The fact that secondary teachers are educated, oriented and organized towards content and specific academic disciplines (Beijaard et al., 2000; van Veen et al., 2001; van Wessum, 1997; Witziers, 1992), while primary teachers are educated, oriented and organized towards their own class and all content and disciplines, might explain some of the differences that were found with regard to participation in decision making, here operationalized as ‘actual participation in curricular and instructional decisions’.

The participation in decision making of Dutch secondary teachers generally takes place in subject departments of the disciplines or content that they actually teach (Reezigt, 1997; van Wessum, 1997; Witziers, 1992; Witziers et al., 1999). These departments appear to be cohesive bodies regulating teacher behaviour in several respects (Visscher and Witziers, 2004). Thus, departments may be important structures in which to enable and increase subject authority and professionalization that is an element of secondary teacher autonomy. In that sense secondary school departments can at times enhance and deepen collaborative efforts in secondary schools. It is therefore plausible that participation in decision making at the level of departments enhances teacher collaboration at this level.

At the same time, this departmentalization might hinder teacher collaboration on a higher organizational level than the level of departments: the school level. The restructuring discourse and the concept of new professionals have already addressed these issues and consider departments as barriers to school-wide collaboration and professional learning. Primary schools are often smaller than secondary schools, and their organizational structures are less complex and less fragmented (see for example Author, 1998; Venne, 2002). More important, participation in curricular and instructional decision making is by definition school based, as teachers teach all disciplines or content. All this explains why school-based curricular and instructional decision making affects school-based teacher collaboration in primary education and not in secondary education.

The finding that ‘teacher orientation towards student performance’ also has a direct positive effect on teacher collaboration could be due to the increasing prominence of ‘data-driven teaching’ and an orientation towards output in primary education (Fullan, 2007; Ledoux, et al., 2009). It is in line with the findings of Vescio and colleagues (2008) and Miller and Rowan (2006) that teacher teams focusing on improving instruction and achievement was a common feature of PLCs that reported achievement gains. The fact that secondary teachers are educated, oriented and organized towards content and specific academic disciplines while primary teachers are educated, oriented and organized towards their own class and all content and disciplines – as mentioned above – might also play a role here. We assume that primary teachers tend to have more concern for student performance in all content and disciplines, while secondary teachers tend to narrow their orientation on student performance in the discipline they teach.

Time for collaboration itself, even when administratively supported, appeared unlikely to improve achievement unless additional conditions are in place to structure its use. These trends strengthen the need for primary teachers to actually collaborate.

Altogether, the findings in primary and secondary schools suggest that teacher collaboration, whatever it is aimed at, requires a perceived need to collaborate that is based on a shared orientation or educational content, besides school-leader support.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adler

Kwon

Heckscher

(2008) Professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science 19(2): 359–376.

Admiraal

Lockhorst

(2010) A Delphi Study to further ideas on a model of teacher communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association , Denver CO, April 2010.

Author and Author (2009) Details removed for review

Author and other author (2007) Details removed for review

Author and Author (2004) Details removed for review

Author (1998) Details removed for review

Bakkenes

(1996) Professional Isolation of Primary School Teachers. A Task-Specific Approach. Leiden: DSWO.

Bakkenes

De Brabander

Imants

(1999) Teacher isolation and communication. Network Analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(2): 166–202.

Beijaard

Verloop

Vermunt

(2000) Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 16(7): 749–764.

10.

Bezzina

(2006) ‘The road less travelled’: Professional communities in secondary schools. Theory Into Practice 45(2): 159–167.

11.

Caldwell

Spinks

(1998) Beyond the Self-Managing School. London and New York: Falmer Press.

12.

Clement

Vandenberghe

(2000) Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education 16(1): 81–101.

13.

Conley

(1991) Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. Review of Research in Education 17(2): 225–266.

14.

Dufour

(2004) What is a ‘professional learning community?’ Educational Leadership 61(8) 6–11.

15.

Education Council (2007) Leraarschap is eigenaarschap [Teachers as owners]. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.

16.

Evetts

(2009) The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In: Gewirtz

Mahony

Hextall

Cribb

(eds) Changing Teacher Professionalism; International Trends, Challenges and Ways Forward. London/ New York: Routledge, pp.19–31.

17.

Figazollo

(2009) Impact of PISA 2006 on the education policy debate. Brussels: Education International.

18.

Fullan

(1993) Change forces, probing the depths of educational reform. London/New York: The Falmer Press.

19.

Fullan

(2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York and London: Teacher College Press.

20.

Gates

Robinson

(2009) Delving into teacher collaboration: untangling problems and solutions for leadership. NASSP Bulletin 93(3): 145–165.

21.

Geijsel

Sleegers

PJC

Stoel

(2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organization and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal 109(4): 406–427.

22.

Grossman

Wineburg

Woolworth

(2001) Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record 103(6): 942–1012.

23.

Hargreaves

(1994) The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 10(4): 423–438.

24.

Hoyle

(1986) The Politics of School Management. Mill Road: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.

25.

Hoyle

(1995) Changing conceptions of a profession. In: Busher

Saran

(eds) Managing Teachers as Professionals in Schools. London: Kogan Page Ltd, pp.59–70.

26.

Hoyle

John

(1995) Professional knowledge and professional practice. London/New York: Cassell Education.

27.

Hoyle

(2001) Teaching: Prestige, status and esteem. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 29(2): 139–152.

28.

Hox

(2002) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

29.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

30.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

(2009) The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 1(27): 1–27.

31.

Hulpia

Devos

(2010) How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(3): 565–575.

32.

Ingersoll

(1996) Teachers’ decision making power and school conflict. Sociology of Education 69(2): 159–176.

33.

Janssens

FHJ

Noorlander

(2010) Goed onderwijsbestuur. Beschouwingen over een nieuwe besturingsfilosofie in het onderwijs [Educational Governance. About a new governance philosophy in education]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

34.

Karstanje

(2000) Onderwijskundig leiderschap [Educational Leadership]. In: Meijnen

Van Wieringen

AML

(eds) Onderwijs in maatschappelijk perspectief [Education and society]. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant, pp.191–219.

35.

Klaassen

(2000) De overdrager is dood, leve de begeleider–pedagoog [The teacher as coach and pedagogue instead of knowledge transferrer]. In: Kleijer

Vrieze

(eds) Onderwijzen als roeping. Het beroep van leraar ter discussie [Teaching as a destiny. The teacher’s profession discussed]. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant, pp.139–176.

36.

Kruse

(2001) Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration 39(4): 359–383.

37.

Lavié

(2006) Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(5): 773–805.

38.

Ledoux

Blok

Boogaard

(2009) Opbrengstgericht werken; over de waarde van meetgestuurdonderwijs [About the value of data-driven teaching]. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamminstituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

39.

Levine

Marcus

(2010) How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(3):389–398.

40.

Little

(1990) The persistence of privacy. Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record 91(4) 509–536.

41.

Little

(2002) Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(8): 917–956.

42.

McAdams

(2006) What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban Schools. New York: Teacher College Record.

43.

Mayrowetz

Murphy

Seashore Louis

(2007) Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the job characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(1) 69–101.

44.

Merriman Bausmith

Barry

(2011) Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher 40(4) 175–178.

45.

Miller

Rowan

(2006) The effects of organic management on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 43(2) 219–253.

46.

Noordegraaf

(2007) From ‘pure’ to ‘hybrid’ professionalism. Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration and Society 39(6): 761–785.

47.

OECD (2005) Teachers Matter; Attracting Developing and Retraining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.

48.

Parliamentary Committee Education Innovations (2008) Tijd voor onderwijs: Eindrapport van de commissie Dijsselbloem [Time for school. Final report of the Committee]. The Hague: SDU.

49.

Reezigt

(1997) Samenwerking tussen leraren in het voortgezet onderwijs [Cooperation between teachers in secondary schools]. Meso 17(93): 2–6.

50.

ResearchNed (2009) De zeggenschap van leraren. Nulmeting in het po, vo, mbo en hbo. [The influence of teachers measured in primary, secondary, vocational and professional education]. Den Haag: Min OCW.

51.

Rice

Schneider

(1994) A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision making, 1980 – 1991. Journal of Educational Administration 32(1): 43–58.

52.

Rizvi

Lingard

(2009) Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge.

53.

Saunders

Goldenberg

Gallimore

(2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I Schools. American Educational Research Journal 46(4):1006–1033.

54.

Scheerens

Bosker

(1997) Conceptualizing school effectiveness. In: Creemers

BPM

Scheerens

(eds) Developments in School Effectiveness Research. Special issue of the International Journal of Educational Research 13(7): 691–706.

55.

Scheerens

(2007). Een overzichtsstudie naar school- en instructie-effectiviteit. [An overview study of school and instruction effectiveness.] Synopsis. Twente: Universiteit Twente.

56.

Seashore Louis

Smith

(1990) Teacher working conditions. In: Reyes

(ed.) Teachers and their Workplace. Commitment, Performance and Productivity. London / New Delhi, Sage Publication, pp.23–47.

57.

Seashore Louis

Kruse

Bryk

(1995) Professionalism and community: What is it and why is it important in urban schools? In: Seashore Louis

Kruse

, Associates (eds) Professionalism and Community; Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, pp.3–22.

58.

Schreiber

Nora

Stage

(2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6): 323–337.

59.

Shields

(2001) A dialogue about communities of difference: A rejoinder to Robert Boostrom. Curriculum Inquiry 31(1): 71–76.

60.

Smylie

(1992) Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14(1): 53–67.

61.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

(2006) Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change 7(4): 221–258.

62.

Stronach

MacLure

(1997) Educational Research Undone. The Postmodern Embrace. Buckingham: Open University Press.

63.

Taylor

Bogotch

(1994) School-level effects of teachers' participation in decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(16): 302–319.

64.

Teachers’ Committee (Commissie Leraren) (2007) Leerkracht! Advies van de Commissie Leraren. [Teacher! Advice of the Teacher Committee]. Den Haag: Min OCW.

65.

Ten Bruggencate

(2009) Maken schoolleiders het verschil? Onderzoek naar de invloed van schoolleiders op de schoolresultaten [Do school-leaders make the difference? Research into the influence of school-leaders on school results]. Academisch Proefschrift. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.

66.

Tschannen-Moran

(2001) Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration 39(4): 308–331.

67.

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (2009-2010), 32–396.

68.

Van Veen

Sleegers

Bergen

(2001) Professional orientations of secondary teachers towards their work. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(2): 175–194.

69.

Van Wessum

(1997) De sectie als eenheid. Samenwerking en professionaliteitsopvattingen van docenten in het voortgezet onderwijs. [Collaboration within departments and perceptions of professionality of teachers in secondary education]. Utrecht: Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University.

70.

Venne

LHJ

(2002) Schaal in het primair onderwijs: een studie naar de relatie tussen schaal en organisatie-effectiviteit [Organizational scale in primary education related to organization effectivity]. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

71.

Vescio

Ross

Adams

(2008) A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(1): 80–91.

72.

Visscher

Witziers

(2004) Subject departments as professional communities? British Educational Research Journal 30(6): 785–800.

73.

Wahlstrom

Seashore Louis

(2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administrative Quarterly 44(4):458–495.

74.

Witziers

(1992) Coördinatie binnen scholen voor voortgezet onderwijs [Coordination in secondary Schools]. Enschede: University of Twente.

75.

Witziers B Bosker

Krüger

(2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Education Administrative Quarterly 39(3): 398–425.

76.

Witziers B Sleegers

Imants

(1999) Departments as teams: Functioning, variations and alternatives. School Leadership & Management 19(3): 293–304.

77.

(2002) Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Education. Available at: http://www.statmodel.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf.