Research shows that teachers in instructional leadership roles face resistance from their peers, who question the authority and legitimacy of their leadership. Peers ask, “What makes you better than the rest of us?” and “What gives you the right to tell me what to do?” Many teacher leaders express frustration when their reform efforts are rebuffed. This paper investigates the experiences of 61 teachers from seven different districts who each served in the same teacher leadership role known as Peer Assistance and Review Consulting Teacher. In contrast to what research has found regarding other teacher leadership roles, teacher leaders in this role gave both advice and critical instructional feedback to peers and made formal recommendations, which districts used in employment decisions. In so doing, Consulting Teachers (CTs) acted counter to the traditional teaching norms of autonomy and egalitarianism, and yet, within the context of the Peer Assistance and Review program, they reported feeling successful and satisfied in their leadership role. This study examines the experiences of these CTs, the components of their work, and what they said made it possible for them to carry out the responsibilities of their role.

CTs in the seven districts described a similar system of labor-management collaboration, which established structures and conditions that helped them carry out their work. A public, rigorous selection process lent legitimacy to those who were hired. CTs based their performance assessments of teachers on clearly defined teaching standards, which, according to CTs and administrators, granted them the authority to carry out their responsibility for improving instruction. Finally, CTs reported that a combination of intense training and direct accountability to a joint panel of administrators and their peers gave them both the skills and the resolve needed to carry out unfamiliar and, at times, uncomfortable work.