Purpose: This exploratory study examines conditions that lead elementary principals to support the work of school-based instructional teacher leaders. The study asks, How do principals' knowledge of teacher leadership and their interaction with teacher leaders contribute to principals' support for teacher leadership? And, How might district communication structures influence principal support? Research Methods: Data collected in 2003-2004 came from five districts, four of which were low− socioeconomic status districts. Interviews with 15 principals, 12 math teacher leaders, and six supervisors focused on the nature and scope of the teacher leader's work and the role of the principal and/or supervisor with regard to the teacher leader. Findings: The study provides evidence of a link between principals' knowledge of the position, their interaction with teacher leaders, and their support for teacher leadership. The research further demonstrates that districts can influence principals' level of support for teacher leaders by increasing communication about the role. Implications: Evidence suggests that districts should build principals' knowledge of teacher leadership and foster principal-teacher leader interaction as a way to promote support. A second implication is the need for further research on other conditions that can influence principals' support.

Purpose: Instructional coaching is framed as both a means for systemic and individual reform. These competing conceptualizations of coaching as a mechanism for change have not been systematically examined, and therefore, we know little about how the framing of instructional coaching initiatives affects the enactment of coaching. In response to this gap in the literature, we examined one district's efforts to use literacy coaching as a means to facilitate system-wide changes in literacy practice. Our investigation asks: How does the framing of coaching as a lever for systemic and/or individual reform influence the enactment of literacy coaching? Research Methods: Qualitative data were collected from four literacy coaches in one district including time allocation logs, interviews (n = 32), recorded discussions, and written documentation. Additional data related to the coaches' training program included observations of 22 training sessions, interviews with the program leaders (n = 7) and regional district leader (n = 3), and survey data from training participants. Findings:Although the coaches in this study aimed to support systemwide changes in literacy practice, the training they received framed coaching as a means to support individual learning. In turn, the change strategies that the coaches employed mirrored this theory of change and focused on being responsive to individual teachers' particular needs, often at the expense of school and district goals. Thus, the findings from this research suggest that the framing of coach roles may influence enactment in consequential ways and raise questions about how coaching can be framed to support both individual and systemic reform. Implications: The findings from this research have implications for the framing of coach roles, the skills and knowledge needed for coaching, and the kinds of professional learning opportunities available to coaches.

A comparison of three urban school systems suggests that district offices can influence teaching through professional development. District leaders can structure their programs to provide coherent and content-focused professional development. The district orientation (vision, emphasis on professional development, use of human resources) set by the dominant coalition of leaders-including but not limited to the superintendent-in each district influenced the coherence and content focus of the professional development programs. District differences in their organizational capacity affected coordination and planning of professional development. The district with the most coherent focus on helping teachers develop deeper knowledge about select subject areas had the greatest teacher-reported influence on teaching practice.Organizational theory suggests great pessimism about the potential of school districts for supporting educational improvement. The traditional view is that educational organizations-and school districts in particularare loosely coupled organizations where the main resources for central leadership are insufficient to penetrate the isolation of the classroom (Bidwell, 1965;Weick, 1976). The great variation in how midlevel district bureaucrats 413