Developing Secondary Mathematics Teacher Leaders: A Multi-Year Curriculum for Inservice Teacher Excellence

Abstract

In response to systemic inequities in mathematics education, we developed and evaluated a five-year, multi-phase curriculum model to cultivate effective secondary mathematics teacher leaders. Supported by NSF Noyce Master Teacher Fellowships, the APLUS in MATH (APLUS in Math: Alabama Practitioner Leaders for Underserved Schools in Mathematics) program engaged 22 inservice teachers through graduate coursework, National Board Certification preparation, and leadership project development. Using a mixed-methods design, we analyzed data from classroom observations (MCOP²), National Board Certification assessments, course performance ratings, and teacher leadership project proposals. Results indicate significant improvements in instructional practices, content knowledge, and leadership readiness. Findings underscore the importance for sustained, structured professional development to prepare teachers as instructional experts and change agents in high-need educational contexts.

1. Introduction

Effective mathematics education is essential for preparing students to thrive in an increasingly STEM-driven economy (NCTM, 2014; Taguma et al., 2023). However, persistent challenges, such as inequitable access to high-quality instruction and insufficient professional development opportunities, underscore the urgent need for teacher leaders who can advocate for and implement systemic improvements in mathematics teaching and learning, especially in high-need schools and districts (NCTM, 2018). These challenges have been further intensified by the ongoing teacher shortages and increasing complexity of instructional demands in post-pandemic learning environments.

Recognizing this need, the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States has prioritized initiatives like the Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship (MTF) programs to transform certified STEM educators into highly skilled teacher leaders. The APLUS in Math program, funded by the NSF, was designed to align with this approach by preparing inservice secondary mathematics teachers for teacher leadership roles through a structured three-phase curriculum. Launched in 2019, the program engaged participants in graduate coursework, National Board Certification preparation, and teacher leadership project development, fostering both individual growth and collective impact in high-need educational contexts.

Grounded in Wenger’s (1999) Communities of Practice framework and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standard’s Five Core Propositions (NBPTS, 2016), the program’s curriculum was intentionally structured to cultivate professional identity, instructional expertise, and leadership capacity. The Communities of Practice model informed the creation of collaborative structures such as professional learning communities (PLCs), peer mentoring, and shared inquiry through leadership project design. These structures supported the development of teacher identity through active participation, reflection, and increasing responsibility within the community, an approach consistent with identity-as-practice theories (Ntow & Adler, 2019).

Similarly, the NBPTS Core Propositions served as both an instructional and an evaluative foundation. The program embedded the propositions across coursework and leadership development components, aligning teacher learning activities with principles of equity, reflective practice, and high standards for student learning. As Spagnolo et al. (2022) have shown, formative engagement with standards-aligned practices in structured training programs supports teachers in internalizing leadership roles and driving instructional improvement. By drawing on these complementary frameworks, the program aimed to support participants in not only developing skills, but also assuming identities as mathematics teacher leaders committed to excellence in high-need settings.

This study examines the effectiveness of the first two phases of the curriculum through quantitative and qualitative analyses, while also exploring the readiness of teachers to enter the third phase as teacher leaders equipped to implement high-impact projects. By offering evidence-based recommendations for curriculum development and implementation, this research contributes to the growing body of work on empowering mathematics teacher leaders and enhancing educational outcomes in underserved communities.

1.1. Mathematics Teacher Leadership

The concept of mathematics teacher leadership has gained increasing attention as educators and policymakers recognize its potential to drive systemic improvement in mathematics education. Teacher leaders extend their influence beyond their classroom responsibilities by mentoring colleagues, advocating for effective practices, and contributing to professional communities (Clemans et al., 2012; Hunzicker, 2012; Sarrell et al., 2024; Sinha & Hanuscin, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Within mathematics education specifically, teacher leaders are uniquely positioned to address content-specific challenges, such as implementing rigorous standards, fostering mathematical reasoning, and promoting equitable teaching practices (NCTM, 2014, 2018; Vale et al., 2023).

Effective mathematics teacher leaders often hold formal leadership positions (e.g., department chairs, instructional coaches, curriculum specialists) and exercise informal leadership roles (e.g., mentoring peers, leading collaborative lesson planning). Regardless of their titles, successful and effective mathematics teacher leaders possess deep content knowledge, pedagogical expertise, and interpersonal skills that enable them to influence their colleagues constructively (Lumpkin et al., 2014; Stronge, 2018; Sublette, 2013; Surrette, 2020; Wenner & Campbell, 2017).

The development of teacher leaders requires sustained, targeted professional development. Programs such as the NSF Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship emphasize multi-year opportunities that integrate advanced coursework, certification pathways, and leadership training. The literature consistently suggests that sustained, structured experiences are critical for preparing teachers to navigate the complexities of leadership roles while maintaining a focus on improving student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Gading, 2024; Groothuijsen et al., 2018; Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Despite these supports, challenges to fostering mathematics teacher leadership remain. Common barriers include limited time and resources, inadequate administrative support, and varying perceptions of leadership roles within school communities. Additionally, the need for culturally responsive leadership that addresses the diverse backgrounds of students and schools, particularly in high-need districts, is increasingly emphasized in the literature (Brown et al., 2022; Dickson, 2023; Klar & Brewer, 2013).

Although still a developing area of research, existing studies underscore the transformative potential of mathematics teacher leadership. When supported through systemic initiatives and ongoing professional development, teacher leaders can lead instructional change and foster collaborative cultures that improve mathematics teaching and learning at scale.

1.2. Fostering Mathematics Teacher Leadership and Its Challenges

Fostering mathematics teacher leadership is a critical strategy for enhancing the quality of mathematics education and addressing systemic inequities in schools. Teacher leaders play pivotal roles in driving instructional change, mentoring colleagues, and shaping school-wide or district-wide practices (Borko et al., 2021; Campbell & Lee, 2017; Huggins et al., 2017). They translate complex mathematical concepts into effective teaching practices while promoting critical thinking, problem-solving, and equitable learning outcomes. However, cultivating such leadership requires intentional professional development and systemic support (Hopkins et al., 2013; Parfitt, 2022).

Effective teacher leadership programs emphasize a blend of content mastery, pedagogical expertise, and leadership skills. Multi-year initiatives, such as the NSF Noyce Master Teacher Fellowships, offer structured opportunities that combine graduate coursework, National Board Certification preparation, and leadership project development. These experiences equip teachers to lead professional development, mentor peers, and implement impactful instructional reforms.

Collaboration is also a key component. Professional learning communities (PLCs) and collaborative lesson planning provide opportunities for teachers to develop and apply leadership skills in authentic contexts (Ansari & Asad, 2024). Moreover, leadership training must include strategies for effective communication, conflict resolution, and cultural competency for teacher leaders to navigate diverse school environments successfully (Ghamrawi et al., 2024; Sorge et al., 2023). Despite these promising models, challenges persist. Time constraints and heavy teaching loads limit teachers’ capacity to engage in leadership roles (Bellibaş et al., 2024; Jotkoff, 2022). Additionally, school systems often lack formal structures to support teacher leadership, resulting in unclear roles for teacher leaders (Bryant & Walker, 2022; Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Teacher leadership programs must be responsive to the unique needs of high-need schools, where systemic barriers to success are prevalent. Teacher leaders in these contexts must address not only academic challenges but also the socioeconomic factors, as well as community cultural factors shaping student learning (Theoharis, 2024).

Lastly, in addition to balancing the required components and remaining responsive to individual needs, professional development for teacher leaders requires securing buy-in from administrators and peers. This is a common obstacle, as teacher leaders can face resistance when introducing new practices (Printy & Marks, 2006). Building trust and establishing credibility takes time but is critical for effective leadership.

In short, fostering mathematics teacher leadership holds transformative potential, but it requires a systemic approach (Campbell & Lee, 2017; Smith et al., 2025). Schools, districts, and policymakers must provide sustained support, clear pathways for leadership roles and culturally responsive professional development to overcome these challenges and maximize the impact of teacher leaders.

1.3. Approaches and Structures for Developing Secondary Mathematics Teacher Leaders

Developing effective secondary mathematics teacher leaders requires intentional approaches and well-designed structures that address the unique demands of mathematics education. Beyond improving individual teaching practices, these initiatives aim to empower teachers to influence colleagues, drive instructional change, and foster collaborative professional cultures within schools and districts (Lai & Cheung, 2015). A foundational approach involves strengthening deep content knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Secondary mathematics teachers must be equipped to handle complex subject matter and facilitate rich mathematical reasoning and problem-solving. Graduate-level coursework and professional development programs tailored to the nuances of secondary mathematics instruction play a critical role. The NSF Noyce Master Teacher Fellowships exemplify this approach by combining advanced coursework with leadership development.

Structured certification pathways, such as National Board Certification, also support teacher leadership by validating instructional excellence and demonstrating a commitment to professional growth. Preparing for these certifications also fosters reflective practices and the use of evidence-based teaching strategies, which are critical for leading peers effectively.

Leadership development must also emphasize interpersonal and organizational skills. Workshops and training sessions on mentoring, conflict resolution, and facilitating PLCs help teacher leaders develop the competencies needed to guide their colleagues effectively (Downing Murley et al., 2008). Leadership projects embedded within these programs provide authentic opportunities for teachers to apply these skills in real-world educational contexts (Duşe, 2020). Sustaining teacher leadership requires collaborative structures and systemic support. Schools and districts should establish PLCs, interdisciplinary teams, and mentorship networks that promote shared learning and continuous improvement (Hunzicker, 2012). Teacher leaders thrive in environments that provide protected time for leadership activities, clear role definitions, and recognition of their contributions (Cherkowski, 2018).

By integrating robust content-focused professional development, leadership skill-building, and supportive organizational structures, schools and districts can cultivate a cadre of secondary mathematics teacher leaders capable of driving lasting improvements in teaching and learning.

2. Mathematics Teacher Leader Program Curriculum

The curriculum for this project was designed to develop mathematics teacher leaders through a multi-phase approach aligned with the research on effective teacher leadership preparation, outlined in the previous section. The planned curriculum was guided by five overarching goals:

• Goal 1: Teachers will become instructional experts in their schools/districts by working to improve and master their own instructional practices over time.
• Goal 2: Teachers will increase their mathematical content knowledge to levels requisite for leading future professional development in their schools/districts.
• Goal 3: Through the collaborative support of administrators, teachers will become leaders to serve as mathematics department chairs, instructional coaches, school/district action-researchers, and/or mentors of early-career teachers through an induction program.
• Goal 4: Teachers will assist in building a high-capacity network for exceptional quality clinical experiences for preservice mathematics teachers.
• Goal 5: Teachers will learn and emerge to enter leadership roles with the Alabama Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ annual conference and national conferences.

This paper focuses primarily on teachers’ accomplishments related to Goals 1 and 2, as well as their readiness to begin the work of Goal 3. Findings related to Goals 4 and 5 are not addressed in this study. These goals and the resultant curriculum reflect a deliberate alignment between advanced content knowledge development, leadership capacity building, and the practical application of skills in real-world contexts. Grounded in the Communities of Practice framework (Wenger, 1999) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ Five Core Propositions, the program provided a coherent and structured pathway for teachers to grow as instructional leaders and change agents. Our research question of focus is as follows: How effective is a multi-year professional development program in preparing inservice secondary mathematics teachers to improve their instructional practices, strengthen their content knowledge, and develop readiness for teacher leadership roles?

2.1. Description of the Three-Phase Curriculum Design

The curriculum was organized into a three-phase design spanning five years. Each phase aligned with the program’s overarching goals to develop teachers as instructional experts, content leaders, and emerging teacher leaders.

Phase 1 (Graduate Coursework—14 months) focused on building instructional expertise (Goal 1) and deepening mathematical content knowledge (Goal 2). Teachers completed six graduate-level courses designed to strengthen both pedagogical practices and content mastery:

Access & Equity in Mathematics Education: Explored strategies for creating equitable learning environments by examining personal instructional beliefs and addressing systemic barriers to student success.

Advanced Algebra and Number Theory: Deepened teachers’ understanding of mathematical structures and connections across the K–12 curriculum.

Instruction and Supervision in Mentoring and Coaching: Introduced adult learning theory and practical strategies for mentoring and instructional coaching, laying the groundwork for teacher leadership.

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum in Mathematics Education: Focused on research-based instructional strategies and curriculum design aligned with national standards.

Technology and Assessment in Mathematics Education: Developed teachers’ capacity to integrate technology effectively and apply formative assessment practices to support student learning.

Advanced Geometry and Data Analysis: Strengthened teachers’ knowledge of geometry, statistics, and data analysis, critical for leading professional development in content areas.

Phase 1 also established a Professional Learning Community (PLC) among participating teachers, fostering collaborative relationships and preparing them for the leadership components in later phases.

In Phase 2 (National Board Certification and Collaborative Leadership Preparation—2 years), teachers worked collaboratively to pursue National Board Certification (NBCT), a rigorous, nationally recognized credential that emphasizes accomplished teaching and reflective practice. Teachers who achieved NBCT status in the first year of Phase 2 served as mentors for peers still pursuing certification, directly supporting Goal 3.

This phase reinforced teachers’ leadership capacity through structured PLCs, mentorship experiences, and preparation for leading school- or district-level projects in Phase 3. This last phase centers on the implementation of teacher leadership projects developed in collaboration with school and district administrators. At the time of this study, Phase 3 was ongoing, and is not the focus of this report.

2.1.1. Brief Descriptions of the Six Graduate Courses, Phase 1

Course 1a—Access & Equity in Mathematics Education: This course focused on developing teachers’ understanding of how cultural, socioeconomic, and behavioral factors impact student learning. Teachers critically examined their instructional beliefs and developed strategies to create equitable and accessible mathematics learning environments. Key assignments included an instructional beliefs reflection, an equity action plan, and a professional presentation on cultural responsiveness (supports Goal 1 and Goal 3).

Course 1b—Advanced Algebra and Number Theory: Teachers explored the historical development of number systems and advanced algebraic concepts, with an emphasis on problem-solving and mathematical reasoning. The course connected abstract mathematical structures to the K–12 curriculum and prepared teachers to lead content-focused professional development. Assignments included content mastery through Khan Academy modules and reflective analysis of teaching practices (supports Goal 2).

Course 2—Instruction and Supervision in Mentoring and Coaching: This course introduced adult learning theory and effective strategies for mentoring and coaching peers. Teachers developed skills in providing constructive feedback, facilitating professional growth, and leading PLCs. Assignments included structured coaching simulations, data-informed feedback exercises, and reflection on adult learning principles (supports Goal 3).

Course 3—Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum in Mathematics Education: Teachers examined historical and contemporary research on mathematics instruction and curriculum design, focusing on strategies that promote active student engagement and standards-based instruction. Major projects included curriculum design aligned to student learning needs and reflective critiques of instructional practices (supports Goal 1).

Course 4a—Technology and Assessment in Mathematics Education: This course developed teachers’ capacity to integrate technology tools effectively in mathematics instruction and to design meaningful formative assessments. Teachers also explored strategies for leading technology-focused professional development for colleagues. Key assignments included technology integration plans and professional development workshops (supports Goals 1 and 3).

Course 4b—Advanced Geometry and Data Analysis: Teachers deepened their understanding of geometry, statistics, and data analysis to strengthen their instructional content knowledge. The course emphasized applying statistical reasoning and data-driven decision-making in classroom contexts. Assignments included content mastery modules and data analysis projects using real-world datasets (supports Goal 2).

2.1.2. Brief Description of the Two Years of Phase 2

Phase 2 spanned two academic years and focused on advancing teachers’ leadership development through the pursuit of National Board Certification (NBCT) and participation in collaborative professional learning communities (PLCs). This phase directly supported the program’s goals of developing instructional expertise (Goal 1), deepening content knowledge (Goal 2), and fostering emerging leadership skills (Goal 3).

Teachers worked collaboratively in PLCs to prepare for the four components of the National Board Certification process, engaging in regular peer feedback and shared reflection on their instructional practices. Those who achieved NBCT status in the first year of Phase 2 served as mentors for their peers in the second year, providing direct leadership experience and reinforcing the program’s emphasis on teacher-led professional growth.

Phase 2 also prepared teachers for Phase 3 leadership projects. During the summer transition between Phases 2 and 3, teachers worked in collaboration with school administrators to develop leadership project proposals aimed at addressing instructional challenges and improving educational outcomes in their local contexts. These projects represented the culminating application of the leadership skills developed throughout the first two phases of the program.

3. Research Methods

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design to evaluate the effectiveness of the program’s first two phases in meeting its goals of improving instructional expertise, deepening content knowledge, and preparing teachers for leadership roles (Katz-Buonincontro, 2024). Data were collected from multiple sources to capture both quantitative outcomes and qualitative insights.

Specifically, the data sources include:

• Classroom Observations: Three observations per year per teacher using the Mathematical Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP²; Gleason et al., 2017).
• National Board Certification Scores: Teachers’ performance on Components 1–4.
• Course Performance Ratings: Quantifiable assessments from Phase 1 coursework.
• Teacher Leadership Project Proposals: Evaluations of proposals for Phase 3 leadership projects as assessed by the project leadership team.

3.1. Participants

The study involved 22 inservice secondary mathematics teachers across five different school districts who participated in the APLUS in Math program over a five-year period. All participants engaged in the full Phase 1 graduate coursework, Phase 2 to pursue National Board Certification, and entered Phase 3 teacher leadership project implementation.

3.2. Data Collection Procedures and Sources

Data were collected systematically across the project phases to capture changes in teacher instructional practices and dimensions of pedagogical content knowledge. The four main data sources used for this study are each briefly described in the sections that follow.

3.2.1. Classroom Observations with the MCOP²

The MCOP² was designed to capture the two sides of the classroom, capturing student engagement in mathematical practices (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) during instruction and teachers’ facilitation of strong effective teaching practices during lesson enactment (NCTM, 2014). The MCOP² development was framed by examining the classroom as a community of learners in which teachers and students comprise the community (Wenger, 1999). The MCOP² has a long history of published works providing strength to validity arguments for its use to capture and measure teacher facilitation and student engagement (Gleason et al., 2015, 2017; Zelkowski & Gleason, 2016; Zelkowski et al., 2024). Classroom observations allow for understanding patterns of improvement (or not) across the two constructs of measurement by the MCOP².

Data was collected with the MCOP² with three observations per teacher per academic school year. Each observation was conducted by a trained doctoral graduate student. Observations began in the first two months of the school year, and each of the second and third observations occurred 2–3 months apart. Three data points provided a yearly rating for teachers and their classrooms.

3.2.2. National Boards Portfolio Scores

Teachers’ performance on Components 1–4 of the National Board Certification process provided standardized measures of content knowledge, instructional expertise, and reflective practice. A supplementary file is provided that describes a greater depth of each component and the scoring scales. Component 1 is a content knowledge computerized assessment. Component 2 is centered on assessing a teacher’s differentiation of instruction. Component 3 is centered on assessing a teacher’s teaching practice and learning environment. Component 4 is centered on assessing a teacher’s ability to be effective and a reflective practitioner.

3.2.3. Course Grades with Quantifiable Differences Across Teachers

Project faculty rated teacher performance across the six Phase 1 graduate courses using a four-level scale. The four-level scale measured the demonstrated teacher performance as:

• Growth less than the level expected of a teacher with experience and assuming teacher leadership in no capacity.
• Growth to the level expected of a teacher with experience and assuming teacher leadership in limited capacities.
• Growth beyond the level expected of a teacher with experience and assuming teacher leadership in multiple capacities.
• Growth at an exceptional level expected of a teacher with experience and assuming teaching leadership in any capacity.

To ensure consistency in performance ratings and reduce subjectivity, project faculty employed the use of descriptive rubrics for overall course performance relative to course assessments administered across the beginning, middle, and end of the courses. Thresholds for course growth ratings (e.g., “acceptable,” “beyond expected,” “exceptional”) were based on program-defined benchmarks that reflected anticipated competencies of teacher leaders. These thresholds were informed by prior literature on teacher development and internal alignment to NBCT scoring expectations.

3.2.4. Teacher Leadership Project Proposal Ideas for Entering Phase 3

Teachers submitted leadership project proposals at the end of Phase 2, which were evaluated by the project leadership team for potential impact and alignment with leadership goals. Each teacher leadership project was categorized as follows:

• Initial proposed ideas of the project demonstrate potential impact.
• Initial proposed ideas of the project demonstrate a significant potential impact.
• Initial proposed ideas of the project demonstrate a very significant potential impact.

These ratings provided snapshots of teachers’ initial ideas of teacher leadership.

3.3. Data Analyses

Our analyses focused on assessing how well the curriculum met Goals 1 (instructional expertise) and 2 (content knowledge) and prepared teachers for leadership roles (Goal 3). We employed both quantitative methods—such as comparing MCOP² scores and NBCT components—and qualitative assessments from course and leadership project proposal evaluations. While Goals 4 and 5 will be addressed in subsequent papers upon project completion, our current analysis provides a comprehensive picture of the curriculum’s impact in the first two phases.

3.3.1. Analyses for Goal 1, Teachers Become Instructional Experts to Lead

Overall, the accomplishment of a teacher in this project becoming an NBCT is effectively a single-measure outcome. Nationally, a total of only about 1–3% of all teachers earn this status. Beyond the accomplishment, we examine the relationship between actual classroom practices via the MCOP² during Phases 1 and 2, and the outcomes of Components 2, 3, and 4 on National Board components. Additionally, three courses in Phase 1 evaluated teachers early on as to their level of accomplishment in individual courses. While these ratings certainly would change as time progresses, these data sources were integrated into the analysis. Triangulation was achieved by comparing patterns across these instruments to identify consistency in teacher development outcomes. For instance, growth observed in MCOP² scores was examined in relation to NBCT scores for instructional practice (Components 2–4) and corroborated by course-based performance ratings in pedagogical domains. Similarly, teacher leadership readiness was assessed by aligning qualitative ratings of leadership project proposals with overall Phase 1 course performance and NBCT certification outcomes.

3.3.2. Analyses for Goal 2, Teachers Develop Strong Content Knowledge to Lead

Component 1 on National Boards includes three individualized constructed response items on Algebra, Geometry, and Data Analysis, as well as a score on the 45-question multiple choice content knowledge test spanning Contexts for Mathematics, Problem Solving/Number Sense, and Modeling and Analysis. Our analysis includes overall preparedness as measured by the National Boards rubrics in each of the three content areas, as well as the overall component score on content knowledge. Additionally, analyses of the MCOP² teacher facilitation construct played a significant role in understanding, while teaching practices were present in higher-/lower–content–knowledge teachers to lead specific professional practice development.

3.3.3. Analyses for Goal 3, Teachers Become Leaders

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the instructional faculty assigned categorical readiness for their proposed leadership projects entering Phase 3. The analysis consists of using measures across Goals 1 and 2 in consideration of the categorical readiness of the impact potential of leadership entering Phase 3. A correlational relationship and a comparative assessment of performance and project potential are presented in the results.

4. Findings

In this section we present our findings from the data analyses.

4.1. Instructional Expertise Outcomes (Goal 1)

We considered two high-validity evidence measures to evaluate the effectiveness of our curriculum in preparing teachers to become instructional experts, as well as our instructor-assigned growth ratings based on Phase 1 course performances. The first was their efforts to become National Board-Certified Teachers (NBCTs) with national standardized scoring rubrics. The second was with the observation protocol the MCOP². Additionally, our team’s third measure was based on course performances in the pedagogical graduate coursework. To evaluate teacher growth in instructional practice, we triangulated data from the MCOP² classroom observation protocol, National Board Components 2–4, and pedagogical coursework ratings.

Table 1. National Board Pedagogical Component 2, 3, 4 findings.

	Component 2	Component 3	Component 4
Mean	2.601	2.685	2.602
Median	3.000	3.000	2.813
Mode	3.000	3.000	3.000
St. Dev.	0.572	0.520	0.535

Note. Data reflects the highest score for each teacher if a component was submitted more than once.

presents the average scores of the participants on NBCT Components 2, 3, and 4, which, as previously described, are focused on instructional practices. Teachers’ average scores on NBCT instructional components ranged from 2.601 to 2.685, indicating clear evidence of accomplished teaching. Median and mode scores were at or above 3.000 across all components (component 4 median 2.813), suggesting that the majority of participants met or exceeded national benchmarks. The means represent scores’ bottom-end range of “clear evidence of accomplished teaching practice”. Likewise, the median and mode scores are slightly more convincing of “clear evidence of accomplished teaching practice” in the upper half and majority of teachers. When factoring in the standard deviation, one could conclude that variation of a half-point reflects the range of teacher performance as slightly “limited” to “clear, consistent, and convincing” evidence of accomplished teaching.

Next, we consider classroom practice, as evidenced by live, multiple classroom observations, of the teachers with the MCOP² (

Table 2. Mathematics Classroom Observation for Practices Protocol [MCOP²] means.

	Baseline	Post-Phase 1	Post-Phase 2
Student Engagement	1.830	2.409 **	2.475 ns
Teacher Facilitation	1.536	2.193 **	2.413 *
Total MCOP2	1.683	2.301 **	2.444 ns

Note. The MCOP² scores represent the mean across all teachers, where baseline scores were collected in a teachers’ first school year in the project; post-Phase 1 scores were collected in the immediate school year after graduate coursework, and post-Phase 2 scores were collected after two years of work towards National Boards. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ^ns non-significant.

). The MCOP² is scored on a 0-1-2-3 rubric on 16 items (See Gleason et al., 2015, 2017). Results from MCOP² observations showed statistically significant improvement in both teacher facilitation and student engagement from baseline to post-Phase 1. Notably, growth in teacher facilitation continued into Phase 2, while student engagement plateaued, suggesting that early gains were sustained through the certification process. Generally, the data shows tremendous growth (Phase 1 to Phase 2) and consistency some improvement after Phase 1.

Across the three pedagogy-focused courses (

Table 3. Teacher pedagogical course growth in Phase 1 courses.

	Course 1a	Course 3	Course 4a	Mean
3-Rating Exceptional	3	7	7	6.667
2-Rating Beyond Expected	13	12	12	12.333
1-Rating Expected/Acceptable	6	3	4	4.667
0-Rating Less than Expected	0	0	1	0.333

Note. Course 1a is access and equity; Course 2 is curriculum, teaching, and learning; Course 3 is tools, technology, and assessment. See Section 3.2.3 for greater descriptions. Zero rating reflects less-than-expected growth. One: rating is acceptable, two: beyond expected, and three: exceptional. N = 22.

), over two-thirds of teachers demonstrated growth “beyond” or “exceptional” relative to expectations for teacher leaders. These results affirm the effectiveness of the graduate coursework in advancing teachers’ instructional expertise. While five teachers demonstrated mostly acceptable growth towards teacher leadership, only one teacher with a life tragedy event did not demonstrate expected growth in the last course.

4.2. Content Knowledge Outcomes (Goal 2)

Content knowledge development was assessed using NBCT Component 1 results and Phase 1 mathematics course ratings. There are multiple measures within the National Boards Component 1 content knowledge assessment. The constructed response section requires teachers to demonstrate content and pedagogical knowledge of mathematics by addressing a specific scenario involving a student’s work or a mathematical problem in the areas of Algebra and Functions, Geometry, and Data Analysis and Statistics. Teachers showed strong performance in all domains, with the highest average scores in data analysis/statistics (M = 3.398) and solid results in algebra and geometry (

Table 4. National Board content knowledge findings.

	Algebra and Function #	Geometry	Data Analysis and Statistics	Selected Response ^
Mean	3.091	3.170	3.398	3.193
Median	3.000	3.000	3.438	3.205
Mode	3.000	4.000	4.000	^
St. Dev.	0.532	0.705	0.560	0.575

Note. Data reflects the highest score for each teacher if a component was submitted more than once. # There are slight variations in the Early Adolescence and Adolescence and Young Adulthood math component tests. Families of Functions extend for the high school teachers beyond middle school teachers. There is also a slight shift in Calculus and Trigonometry between both tests. ^ Selected response is a continuous score, so the mode is not calculable since all are different.

). The combined score distribution indicated that 21 of 22 teachers demonstrated “clear” or better evidence of content mastery.

Lastly, we considered growth as measured within the two content knowledge courses in Phase 1 of the project. As shown in

Table 5. Teacher content knowledge growth in Phase 1 courses.

	Course 1b	Course 4b	Mean
3-Rating Exceptional	9	9	9.000
2-Rating Beyond Expected	7	5	6.000
1-Rating Expected/Acceptable	4	3	3.500
0-Rating Less than Expected	1	4	2.500

Note. Course 1b is algebraic and number; Course 2b geometry and data analysis, stats, and probability. See Section 3.2.3 for depth descriptions. Zero rating reflects less-than-expected growth. One rating is acceptable; two: beyond expected; and three: exceptional. N = 22.

, fifteen teachers were rated as having achieved “beyond expected” or “exceptional” growth in content knowledge across two content courses. These ratings suggest the curriculum’s alignment with NBCT standards effectively deepened teachers’ mathematical understanding (see Section 3.2.3).

4.3. Teacher Leadership Readiness Outcomes (Goal 3)

Teacher leadership development was assessed through three sources: performance in the leadership-focused Phase 1 course, Phase 2 leadership project proposals, and overall program performance across Phases 1 and 2 entering Phase 3.

In the Phase 1 teacher leadership course focused on adult learning and professional collaboration, 15 of 22 teachers were rated as demonstrating “beyond expected” or “exceptional” growth in leadership development (

Table 6. Teacher leadership growth in Phase 1 course, overall growth, and project potential.

	Course 2
3-Rating Exceptional	5
2-Rating Beyond Expected	10
1-Rating Expected/Acceptable	7
0-Rating Less than Expected	0

Note. Course 2 is the course focused on adult learners, mentoring, coaching, and teacher leadership in PLCs. See Section 3.2.3 for descriptions. Zero rating reflects less-than-expected growth. One rating is acceptable; two: beyond expected; and three: exceptional. N = 22.

). These ratings reflected teachers’ ability to mentor peers, develop and lead professional learning communities, and design early leadership activities.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, teachers submitted leadership project proposals collaboratively developed with their school administrators. These were evaluated for potential impact (

Table 7. Teacher overall teacher leadership growth in Phases 1 and 2, overall performance.

	Mean Rating	Project Potential	Comparison	NBCT	Overall
Teacher1	1.500	1	Under	No	Not
Teacher2	1.833	2	Expected or Better	Yes	Successful
Teacher3	1.000	1	Expected or Better	Yes	Borderline
Teacher4	0.833	2	Expected or Better	No	Not
Teacher5	2.500	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher6	2.167	2	Under	Yes	Successful
Teacher7	3.000	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher8	2.333	2	Under	Yes	Successful
Teacher9	2.833	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher10	2.000	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher11	1.333	2	Expected or Better	Yes	Successful
Teacher12	2.833	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher13	1.667	1	Under	Yes	Borderline
Teacher14	1.833	2	Expected or Better	Yes	Successful
Teacher15	2.500	3	Expected or Better	Yes	High Success
Teacher16	1.667	1	Under	No	Borderline
Teacher17	1.500	2	Expected or Better	Yes	Successful
Teacher18	1.833	1	Under	No	Borderline
Teacher19	2.667	2	Under	Yes	Successful
Teacher20	1.833	1	Under	Yes	Borderline
Teacher21	2.500	1	Under	Yes	Successful
Teacher22	1.833	2	Expected or Better	Yes	Successful
MEAN	2.000	1.950	13 of 22	18 of 22	20 of 22

Note. Mean ratings represent the mean across all six graduate courses related to Goals 1, 2, and 3 at the individual teacher level in terms of growth towards teacher leadership. See Section 3.2.3 for descriptions. Project potential is a 1-2-3 level proposed project on the potential to impact students, their school, and/or teachers; see Section 3.2.4. Comparison is whether the teachers’ proposed project to start Phase 3 was rated “at or higher” than their performance in Phase 1 coursework. NBCT is whether achieved or not in Phase 2. The overall column presents our qualitative categorical assignment for all 22 teachers for teacher leadership potential because of Phases 1 and 2. Correlation coefficient between mean rating and project potential: 0.579.

). Nearly 70% of teachers (15 of 22) proposed projects rated as having “significant” or “very significant” potential to impact instruction, collaboration, or student outcomes.

Cross-analysis of teachers’ NBCT status, course growth averages, and leadership project quality revealed that 18 of 22 teachers were rated as successful or highly successful in leadership preparation. A positive correlation (r = 0.579) was found between mean growth in coursework and leadership project impact potential, underscoring the value of sustained instructional and content development as foundations for effective leadership.

5. Discussion

Findings from the evaluation of the first two phases of the APLUS in Math program curriculum suggest that the multi-year curriculum was largely successful in supporting teachers’ development across three domains, including instructional expertise, content knowledge, and teacher leadership.

In relation to instructional practice, significant improvements were evident across multiple indicators. The MCOP² observation tool showed increased teacher facilitation and student engagement scores from pre- to post-Phase 1. These findings were corroborated by NBCT Component 2–4 scores and coursework evaluations. This triangulated evidence highlights the value of structured pedagogical coursework, paired with reflective certification processes, in strengthening instructional capacity among experienced teachers. The observed plateau in student engagement during Phase 2, while not necessarily negative, may suggest the need for sustained support beyond initial professional development phases. These outcomes affirm the importance of sustained, well-aligned content-focused professional development in transforming instructional practice, as supported by prior research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Lai & Cheung, 2015).

Regarding content knowledge, the data indicates strong alignment between the Phase 1 mathematics courses and the mathematical knowledge domains assessed in NBCT Component 1. Teachers demonstrated improved understanding across algebra, geometry, and data analysis, which were emphasized in both the curriculum and the certification framework. This alignment underscores the importance of intentional curriculum design that bridges advanced content learning with national teaching standards. These findings align with prior studies emphasizing that deep content knowledge is foundational for teachers to effectively lead instructional improvements (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hunzicker, 2012; Campbell & Lee, 2017).

In terms of leadership development, teachers’ performance in coursework and leadership project proposals suggests that the program effectively prepared most participants for initiating school-based leadership efforts. However, the range of project proposal quality indicates that some participants may benefit from additional scaffolding or mentoring before implementing high-impact initiatives. These findings point to the value of Phase 3 in providing continued guidance as teachers enact their projects and transition into formal leadership roles. These findings reinforce the role of structured leadership preparation and mentoring in building teacher leadership capacity (Borko et al., 2021; Sinha & Hanuscin, 2017).

Despite these positive outcomes, some teachers demonstrated only partial readiness for leadership roles. In these cases, readiness was often limited by external factors such as administrative constraints or personal circumstances rather than programmatic shortcomings. These findings highlight the importance of ongoing administrative support and flexible leadership pathways to accommodate varying personal and professional contexts (Jotkoff, 2022; Klar & Brewer, 2013). Such variability underscores the need for additional systemic supports including protected time for leadership activities and more explicit role definitions within school structures.

5.1. Limitations

This study is limited by its small sample size and regional focus, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, leadership readiness was assessed primarily through faculty ratings and project proposal evaluations, which, while informative, introduce some subjectivity. Finally, as Phase 3 implementation is ongoing, the long-term impacts of teacher leadership projects have not yet been fully evaluated.

5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy

This study offers several implications for the design and implementation of professional learning programs that aim to cultivate mathematics teacher leaders. First, the success of the APLUS in Math program in fostering instructional and content growth suggests that multi-phase models—combining structured coursework, national certification, and applied leadership experiences—can be highly effective in preparing experienced teachers for leadership roles in high-need schools. Such models allow for the gradual development of professional capacity, integrating theory, reflection, and practice in a coherent sequence.

Second, the alignment between NBCT components and the program’s curriculum demonstrates the value of anchoring professional learning in widely recognized instructional standards. Embedding the Five Core Propositions into the coursework and leadership development activities helped ensure consistency and rigor, while also fostering teachers’ commitment to continuous improvement and equity-focused instruction. This alignment can serve as a replicable design principle for other districts or institutions seeking to support instructional leadership.

Third, the emphasis on Communities of Practice fostered collaborative learning, distributed expertise, and shared inquiry—critical components for sustaining teacher leadership beyond the duration of the program. Professional learning communities and structured mentoring relationships provided a platform for identity development, agency, and mutual accountability, reinforcing research on identity-as-practice and leadership emergence.

Finally, the variability in leadership project proposal quality highlights the importance of sustained support in the transition from leadership preparation to leadership enactment. Institutions and school districts implementing similar models should consider providing ongoing coaching, administrator engagement, and structured peer feedback mechanisms to increase the likelihood of successful implementation and long-term impact. As districts and states continue to grapple with teacher shortages and persistent equity gaps, investing in leadership development for experienced teachers represents a strategic and scalable approach to improving instruction and retaining highly qualified educators in underserved communities.

Overall, the integration of instructional, content, and leadership preparation in a coherent, multi-year model appears to be a promising approach to cultivating mathematics teacher leaders. By embedding professional identity development, reflective practice, and collaborative learning structures into the program, the APLUS in Math project demonstrates how theoretical frameworks can be operationalized to support meaningful, sustained growth among inservice secondary mathematics teachers.

6. Conclusions

The APLUS in Math program, supported through the NSF Noyce Track 3 Master Teacher Fellowship, represents a sustained and theoretically grounded effort to prepare experienced mathematics teachers for leadership roles in high-need educational contexts. Through its three-phase design anchored in graduate coursework, National Board Certification preparation, and leadership project development, the program provided a structured, multi-year pathway for professional growth across instructional, content, and leadership domains.

Findings from the first two phases indicate that most participants experienced measurable gains in instructional effectiveness and content knowledge, with many demonstrating readiness to lead instructional improvement efforts in their school communities. The integration of Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1999) and the Five Core Propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards contributed to the coherence of the program by aligning teacher identity development with rigorous standards for teaching and leadership. These frameworks also supported collaboration, reflection, and distributed expertise as central components of leadership cultivation.

The results contribute to the growing body of evidence that sustained and structured professional development is critical for developing teacher leaders capable of promoting equity and improving instruction in high-need contexts (Borko et al., 2021; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Sinha & Hanuscin, 2017). Our findings are consistent with prior research emphasizing the importance of intentional, multi-phase programs in supporting teacher leadership (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2013). While most participants demonstrated strong preparation, some variation in leadership project quality suggests that additional scaffolding may be needed to ensure that all teachers are equipped to design and implement high-impact initiatives.

Importantly, the success of such programs depends not only on thoughtful curriculum design but also on systemic support such as administrative encouragement, protected time for leadership responsibilities, and clearly defined leadership pathways (Jotkoff, 2022; Klar & Brewer, 2013). Addressing these structural factors is essential for sustaining teacher leadership at scale and ensuring its integration into school improvement systems. By investing in the development of mathematics teacher leaders, educational systems can create more equitable and effective learning environments that support both teacher and student success.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the emerging literature on mathematics teacher leadership by providing empirical evidence of a program’s effectiveness and offering actionable recommendations for scaling and sustaining high-quality leadership development in high-need educational settings.