Three Transformative Leadership Practices

Abstract

What does it take to prioritize science instruction in an elementary system? In this article, we’ll examine three transformative leadership practices underway in a Title-1 school district in Central Phoenix and their role in shifting the district culture from little-to-no science instruction for elementary students towards a burgeoning commitment to phenomena-based science teaching and learning. We describe how a focus on allocated and reinforced science instructional time, high-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials, and coordinated opportunities for teacher professional growth worked in concert as crucial elements to enact systems change.

Keywords::

• Elementary science instruction
• transformative leadership
• district culture
• instructional time and materials
• science literacy integration
• professional growth

Prioritization of science in elementary school is essential to ensure equitable learning experiences, provide a foundation for later learning, and nurture scientific identities and curiosity in all students. Yet making a shift to including science as a core component of the school day is challenging and requires fostering a culture of shared commitment among educators at every level of the district system—district leaders, administrators, teachers, and instructional coaches. In this Leadership Matters column, we will discuss one elementary district in Central Phoenix designated as Title-1 and with a student population of 92% Latino/a and 40% multilingual learners as a case study of how this shift can be made. We will highlight the work of the Science Strategist, hired by the district in 2019 and charged with establishing and supporting implementation of high-quality, literacy-rich, equitable science instruction across the K–5 system.

Although the term implementation could simply be thought of as whether a given idea, practice, or program gets “put in place” (Fullan 2003), in reality, even when put in place, there are varying degrees of enactment, or what is actually done behind classroom doors (Ball, Maguire, and Braun 2012; Fensham 2009). Having a dedicated district role for an elementary science-focused instructional leader—a specialist, coordinator, or strategist—is integral in the adoption, interpretation, and implementation of new science initiatives (Whitworth, Maeng, Wheeler, and Chiu 2017). This person or team is responsible for navigating classroom, school, and district contexts to build system-wide capacity for science instruction. Depending on their context, a science leader takes on a number of coordinated workstreams, such as communicating and brokering knowledge between educators, managing science resource logistics, facilitating professional learning, coaching, modeling lessons, co-planning, and providing pacing and instructional recommendations. The Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades report emphasizes how leaders at the local level, specifically in public districts and schools, are often in the role to navigate the broader policy environment in efforts to transform preschool through elementary science and engineering education (NASEM 2021).

In this case study, we will highlight three transformative practices used by the district and Science Strategist to shift the culture and build capacity of all educators in the district toward a shared commitment to providing access to high-quality, phenomenon-driven, student-centered science learning experiences. The three transformative practices—allocated and reinforced science instructional time, high-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials, and coordinated opportunities for teacher professional growth—work synergistically and must be employed concurrently to create the conditions necessary to shift culture and build capacity for elementary science teaching and learning. While this case study illustrates how the three transformative practices played out in this particular district, the practices are generalizable and can help shift conditions in a variety of instructional contexts.

Transformative practice 1: Allocated and reinforced instructional time

The first transformative practice, allocated and reinforced instructional time, was of paramount importance for the district to address to create the structural conditions needed to prioritize science instruction. This practice is relevant for addressing concerns of equity as a lack of science instructional time has been linked to persistent achievement gaps between different socioeconomic backgrounds and to lower scores on national science tests (Blank 2013). This awareness is reflected in the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) recommended daily instructional minutes for science (30 minutes/day in grades K–2, 45 minutes/day in grades 3–5). Yet despite these recommendations, up until 2021, schools across the district lacked consistently scheduled science time, resulting in instructional minutes not always being upheld. Furthermore, district requirements for ELA and intervention instructional time increased and continued to compete for and reduce science instructional time.

Coinciding with the adoption of a high-quality curriculum in 2021 and informed by educator feedback, the Science Strategist created district science instructional minute guidelines to bolster science time. These guidelines, which allocated 50 minutes of daily science for half the year (alternating with social studies) indicated the time needed to effectively implement the curriculum. While these new guidelines served as an improvement in the consistency of instructional minutes across the district, there are still structural and historical challenges in enacting the policies. Examples include a steady need for intervention and language support time, science time being used for other subjects or events, or science blocks being at less-conducive times of the schedule (e.g., end of the school day).

In this district, engaging in reflective discussions and messaging with educators was key in responding to these challenges to protect and reinforce instructional minutes. For example, the district Science and Language Development Strategists collaborated to showcase and leverage science as an effective tool to develop language. They utilized the newly adopted standards-designed literacy-rich science instructional materials to demonstrate the power of authentic science and literacy learning opportunities and assessments to support students’ overall academic growth. These messages and the collaboration across subject areas proved to be an invaluable conduit in building capacity and shifting the mindsets of educators to commit to protecting and reinforcing instructional time.

While each system has its own unique set of time considerations and challenges, the process of allocating, protecting, and reinforcing dedicated instructional time for science is a vital practice to ensure all students have opportunities to engage in rich science learning experiences. This work involves committing a proportion of the instructional schedule to science, as well as building capacity and shifting mindsets of educators around using the allocated time. Teachers, cross-subject district leaders, and principals will benefit from a deeper understanding of how science time can work to improve rather than reduce engagement and student learning across the school day.

Transformative practice 2: High-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials

The second transformative practice, use of high-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials, has been instrumental in building the district’s capacity and commitment to elementary science teaching and learning. Embedding literacy practices within elementary science instruction can support teachers in meeting some of their cross-content pedagogical responsibilities, resulting in positive effects for students’ learning in both disciplines (Cervetti et al. 2012). This integrated instructional approach is enhanced when teachers and students have access to high-quality instructional materials that can simultaneously build students’ facility across both science and literacy (Girod and Twyman 2009; Wright and Gotwals 2017).

Prior to the current adoption, the district lacked a comprehensive elementary science curriculum. Teachers were burdened with creating their own science instructional materials or sourcing learning activities from websites and frequently used science-themed texts from their English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum as the basis of their science instruction. Not only did this inconsistent approach result in disjointed science learning experiences for elementary students across the district, but it also limited opportunities for the district’s substantial multilingual learner population to engage in rich language development opportunities inherent to learning and doing science. District leadership recognized that this unsystematic approach to science instructional materials was inhibiting students’ access to high quality science learning and consequently, funds were allocated for the adoption of a new curriculum.

A science curriculum adoption committee composed of teachers was established and tasked with reviewing and piloting a selection of commercial science instructional materials. The committee ultimately selected integrated K–5 science and literacy materials that offer students a wealth of opportunities for listening, speaking, reading, and writing as they engage in sensemaking through science and engineering practices. The integrated science and literacy foundation in these instructional materials was a key factor in the committee’s decision, aligning with one of the district’s key goals around supporting multilingual learners.

As implementation of the curriculum spread across schools and classrooms in the district, students have been observed in unprecedented numbers engaging in scientific and engineering practices as evidenced by their actions, vocabulary use, written work, and discourse. Teachers have highlighted how the curriculum has been instrumental in cultivating students’ science identity, academic language development, engagement, and confidence with speaking and writing. Further, teachers have reported more confidence and self-efficacy with respect to their own science instruction as a result of their use of the high-quality instructional materials. School administrators have increasingly begun to see the value of the engagement and learning gains, and have been protecting and reinforcing science instructional time, as evidenced by an increasing number of science classroom walks and scheduling science time earlier in the day.

Adoption and implementation of high-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials, while a multi-stage process, is a key practice to providing equitable learning opportunities for all students. Leveraging the language-intensive science and engineering practices of newly adopted standards and utilizing literacy-rich science instructional materials can boost authentic science and literacy learning opportunities that support students’ overall academic growth.

Transformative practice 3: Coordinated opportunities for teacher professional growth

The third transformative practice, coordinated opportunities for teacher professional growth, has been essential in building the capacity of teachers to use the curriculum and to reinforce the value of science instruction. The Science Strategist designed and facilitated coordinated opportunities for teacher-centered, content-based learning focused on state standards-based shifts in science teaching and learning, particularly around the science and engineering practices and language development. Prior to the curricular adoption, teachers in the district received limited access to science professional learning opportunities (PL). This shortcoming aligns with national trends where teachers engage in science-specific PL significantly less than in ELA- and math-specific PL (Doan and Lucero 2021). Taking an asset-based approach, the Science Strategist sought to develop and reinforce teacher values, beliefs, and self-efficacy for using the adopted curriculum. Three strategies were used to foster professional growth—development of teacher leaders, design of teacher-centered professional learning experiences, and coaching and collaboration at the classroom and school level.

The Science Teacher Advocates, a cross-district network of teacher leaders, met on a monthly basis with the Science Strategist. Not only did this group help inform the development and improvement of district-wide PL and instructional pacing supports, but their participation as advocates allowed them to build leadership knowledge, a practice which can enhance schools’ capacity for sustained learning (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010). This group voiced the need for teacher-centered PL that was engaging, meaningful, and productive by providing ample opportunities for hands-on sense-making and peer-to-peer discourse.

To this end, curriculum-specific teaching and active learning strategies were employed in PL with teachers to provide them opportunities to build content and pedagogical content knowledge while critically examining and reflecting on practice (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017). Throughout the PL, teachers were provided with diverse opportunities to engage with the curricular materials in the role of both student and teacher, make sense of new learning through structured instructional planning time, solve problems of practice through peer-to-peer discussions, and engage in teacher-choice mini-workshops showcasing the exemplary instructional artifacts of district teachers.

To further foster professional growth, PL content was coordinated with the coaching and collaboration that took place in school settings. This coordination included supporting grade-level team planning and preparation time during teacher professional learning community time, as well as instructional support and scaffolding through pacing guides, model lessons, peer-to-peer lesson observations, co-teaching, and quarterly site leadership science data meetings.

Designing and implementing job-embedded PL is a practice that should be responsive to the educators in each unique system. Key strategies that support educators’ professional growth may include building distributed leadership (e.g., creating a cadre of teacher leaders), providing collaborative learning experiences that support instructional materials implementation, and in-classroom coaching and support.

Summary

This school district has invested in time and resources to build capacity and shift the mindsets of all educators to ensure science teaching and learning is an essential part of the school day. The enactment of three transformational practices have fostered a burgeoning shared commitment to science teaching and learning, the impacts of which have been seen, heard, and felt by educators across the district. The challenge for subsequent years of implementation is to sustain momentum and grow this culture of commitment to equitable science education in every classroom and for every student.

While every system or school will vary in the specific actions and strategies they take to support educators in their unique context, elements from each practice—allocated and reinforced science instructional time, high-quality literacy-rich science instructional materials, and coordinated opportunities for teacher professional growth—can be applied to any context. When employed together and facilitated by a dedicated science instructional leader, these three transformative practices can build the capacity of a system to shift its culture for elementary science teaching and learning.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Abbott

Rebecca Abbott ([email protected]) is a senior professional learning specialist, and Meredith Moran ([email protected]) is a senior curriculum and research specialist, both at The Center for K–12 Science at the University of California, Berkeley's Lawrence Hall of Science. Alicia Baier Wideman ([email protected]) is the K–8 science strategist at Isaac School District in Phoenix, Arizona.