Summary
Introduction
This paper investigates ways in which educational systems can better support school leaders. For the purpose of this paper, the term 'educational systems' refers to the education agency of the government public service. It is a generic term that refers to any government education department in Australia. The term school leader refers to the principal and assistant principal. While the philosophy of 'leadership at all levels' is supported by the author, the purpose of this paper is specifically around the relationship between corporate and school leaders with positional power.
The framework or philosophy taken to explore this question is centred to the notion of a leaning organisation rather that a bureaucratic one. It is chosen because the moral purpose of education is to advance learning as apposed to bureaucratically manage the system. However, the inherent tension between accountability and leading with a learning focus is experienced by all leaders at all levels. While this perception is acknowledged, examining the tension goes beyond the scope of this paper.
This paper will critically examine the literature on learning organisations and reflect on the role of educational systems to model and ensure that clusters and schools are learning organisations. For the purposes of this conversation, the term learning organisation encompasses the meaning of communities of practice and collaborative school environments. Following this, the case for change will be made that will examine why current practices must change and finally an explanation of how the system can be redefined to support school leaders more.
Learning organisations
Schools as learning organisations emphasises several characteristics including: development and improvement; shared values and vision: supportive and shared leadership: valuing learning both individually and collectively: collaboration and improved learning outcomes. This paper will argue that the same characteristics are important for the system to up hold and thus use as a support mechanism for educational leaders.
Watkins and Marsick (1993) have defined a learning organisation as:
‘ ...one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Learning takes place in individuals, teams and organisations, and even in communities with which the organisation interacts. Learning is a... strategically used process integrated with, and running parallel to work... The learning organisation has embedded systems to capture and share learning’.
Watkins and Marsick also say: ‘[l]earning helps people to create and manage knowledge that builds a system’s intellectual capital’ (1999:81).
Educational researchers, Christie and Lingard (2001), report a number of characteristics of teacher professional learning communities including: ‘reflective and collaborative pedagogical practices, along with the deprivatisation of such practices, framed by a coherent statement of values . . . substantial professional conversations about pedagogy are at the core of professional culture within the school’.
Wagner and Snyder (2000) have described in communities of practice as, ‘the merging companies that thrive on knowledge’. Benefits are business based - and competitive edge. Membership is self-selecting with the main aims being to build and maintain knowledge for the organisation. Parallels with communities in practice, learning organisations including communities can be made with the focus on niche support benefits for the organisation developing shared understanding.
Hence, the notion of a learning community is one when educators engage in inflected dialogue, where there is the privatisation practice, collaboration and shared norms and values. The goal of their actions in this is to improve the effectiveness is professionals, so in that students benefit.
From a system and whole-school perspective, respecting diversity fosters learning by building a climate of trust and encouraging risk-taking:
Before teachers will collaborate on student learning in an authentic way, they must trust their principal and one another. Collaborative teamwork is too risky to happen without a culture of trust. They must believe that it will be OK if they make a mistake or try something new and it doesn’t work out. (Taylor, 2002:43)
Expectations from the system and formal leaders must be aware that all community members are encouraged to participate to the collective learning, regardless of formal status:
‘ . . . in getting the job done, the people involved ignored divisions of rank and role to forge a single group around their shared task, with overlapping knowledge, relatively blurred boundaries, and a common working identity. . . [and] whether the task is deemed high or low, practice is an effective teacher and the community of practice an ideal learning environment.’
(Brown & Duguid, 2000:127)
Senge et al. (1994) considers that, ‘the core of learning organisation work is based upon five disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking) - lifelong programs for study and practice’. Senge argues that the innocence of leading organisation is one that engages us in the ‘deep learning cycle’. This cycle, when well established in an organisation, enables members to make fundamental mental shifts, both individually and collectively. The cycle is sensitive on the domain of ensuring change and includes awareness and sensibilities, attitudes and beliefs and skills and capabilities. He explores key areas of building learning communities, including reinventing relationships, being loyal to the truth, strategies for developing personal mastery, building a shared vision, designing a dialogues session, strategies for team learning, organisations as communities and designing an organisation’s governing ideas.
Literature on learning organisations indicates that a collective focus on learning throughout the organisation. However, education departments, Australia-wide, are very skilled at keeping ‘an arms distance from the real work’. What forums are organised for workers at the ‘chalk face’ to share and learn more about their practice? Fullan, Hill, & Crevola (2006:87) state the fundamental alignment required between the three levels of education. Their ‘tri-level reform’ consists of school and community level; district/regional level; and state/federal level. What learning and communication, between all tri-levels to ensure educational reform, is available?
A case for change
The Australian Council of Deans of Education, suggesting that a new economic importance and changing workplace landscape requires new types of learning in schools and in society. In New Learning (2001:33):
‘The new economy requires new persons: persons with them were flexibly with changing technologies; persons who can work effectively in a new relationship -- focus on commercial environment and: and people who are able to work within an open and organisational culture and across diverse cultural settings’.
The students we teach and the society we prepare students for has dramatically changed. A new approach to teaching and learning is needed to meet this new agenda. Structural reform has failed in the past. Imposing change from without may not reach the target and - effective change must target in the classroom teacher because it is where pedagogy takes place. Moreover, no longer are groups of economically and socially challenged families pocketed into neat section of Australian cities. These groups are now found throughout all Australian suburbs. Access to mainstream education is challenging for disadvantaged families. For an equitably and just society with social justice system in place, all students must be able to engaged in education for the future of Australia. Education is the only method to break the cycle of poverty and provide hope for all disadvantaged children.
The current level of Federal spending on education is ‘well below the average for OECD countries’. If Australia is to maintain its global reputation as the ‘clever country’, an injection of funds into education, to return its GDP rating of 6.4% as it was in 1974, is required (2000: GDP 4.5%). An increase in funding and the redistribution of funds to schools serving disadvantaged communities to redress social justice issues is essential. Forty-five per cent of Territory students are Indigenous; if the Territory is to lead in social and economic in domains, the students of today must be educated.
For true reform to take place, it needs to be at the school, classroom level and system level. The establishment of learning communities is paramount to increase student learning. With the increase in the world’s complexity, it is unreasonable to expect an individual teacher or school to bring about the change without system support.
In School leadership and student outcomes: identifying what works and why, by Robinson (2007), clear links are demonstrated with leadership and learning outcomes. Of the five leadership dimensions identified in her meta-analysis (establishing goals and expectations; strategic resourcing, planning; coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; ensuring orderly and supportive environments), the most significant effect size of 0.84 was promoting and participating in teacher learning and development. Hence, a clear case has been established that educational leaders must redefine their role and ensure that regular and ingoing professional learning on pedagogy is at the forefront of the school’s agenda.
Layered on top of Robinson’s meta-analysis is the work of Harpaz. He argues that the modern learning methods do not align with 10 fundamental principals of effective learning – that leads to understanding and that education today is little more than a factory. Harpaz argues that a focus in a ‘community of thinkers’ is required to motivate and engage student of today.
A myriad of statistical data will demonstrate that there is indeed cause for great concern in the standard of literacy and numeracy in Australia, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups, including Aboriginal students.
As Einstein’s frequently quoted advice says, ‘If you keep doing the same thing then you will keep getting the same results’. In terms of education and the way the system supports educational leaders, clearly, there has to be change.
Leadership styles
Numerous leadership styles are described in the literature - identifying strengths and weaknesses. Roberts, in Senge’s text, argues that educational leadership must allow people to lead without having control and she illustrates four key competencies to do this. They are:
Kotter (1990), articulates the difference between management and leadership. Management, he says, is about coping with complexity. Management is about planning and budgeting, organising and staffing, controlled and problem solving. Leadership is about coping with change, which is increasingly necessary in a constantly changing environment, for example, rapid increase in technology, globalisation, and changing demographics. Leadership is about setting a direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring. Kotter says most companies are over-managed and under-led. This view can be applied to educational systems. Kotter concludes, ‘Institutionalising (and dispersing) a leadership-centred culture is the ultimate act of leadership’.
Transformational leadership orientates the leader towards people, as apposed to tasks. Through employment of interpersonal skills, the transformational leader can build close bonds with staff, assist followers to develop and achieve goal, engage teacher commitment for school vision, and develop a productive school climate.
Pedagogical leadership is required to ensure that the school leaders are available for strategic pedagogical planning and mentor on a daily basis for teachers. Many recent studies point directly to the role of ongoing professional leaning, in context, to effect positive change in learning outcomes. This more recent move towards pedagogical leadership is a far cry from the charismatic leader of the 1990s. Such the change that it is worth being mindful that some educational leaders may feel threatened with the expectation from the system that their role should reshape. If this is the case, support is required through mentoring and education, to up-skill people in pedagogical leadership.
Redefining the system support to support school leaders
Radical improvement in educational outcomes requires innovative approaches. Based on the need to develop more of a learning organisation at the tri-level, it will require a dedicated departmental position to bring about the system tri-level paradigm shift. While there is evidence that attributes of learning organisations are deposited throughout education agencies, a thorough and consistent approach is constantly interfered with due to the bureaucratic nature of government organisations. It is my view that the intent to focus on learning organisation outcomes is present. However, for a myriad of bureaucratic reasons it is often tucked away on the ‘important but not urgent list’. And more immediate business is dealt with first.
Pedagogical leadership has been proven to target the very clients needing to improve outcomes. For the shift, school leaders need to ‘off load’ a number of current practices to enable time to focus on teaching and learning. With this, requires mentoring and focus groups to work through the many blockers that inhibit the willing from actualising this very important paradigm shift. For the ‘unwilling’, that is a role for the system to understand and support school leaders in the shift.
Generally speaking, the nature of government organisations is to focus on the business that is measures. The newly created position to set up and maintain a tri-level learning organisation will need to identify the key components of the learning organisation and develop a framework to guide organisational behaviour and outcomes – at the tri level.
Cross-fertilisation between school and corporate is essential so an opportunity for work shadowing between the two is essential. Discontent is often rooted in ignorance and the best way to turn this around is to stretch comfort zones and see and participate the good work that is happening elsewhere in the agency.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the realisation that the ‘old factory’ education is no longer meeting the needs of our clients calls for new measures to support school leaders. While the intent to support schools is obvious, the behaviour of our system leaders is often consumed by the day to day operational demands.
This paper has critically examined the literature on learning organisations and reflected on the role of educational systems to model and ensure that clusters, schools and the system are learning organisations. A case for change examined some of the reasons why current practices must change. Finally, an explanation of how the system can be redefined to support school leaders more was proposed.
The challenge all educators face, at all levels, is summarised by Bill Gates, the Chairman of Microsoft: ‘The complacent company is a dead company. Success today requires the agility and drive to constantly rethink, reinvigorate, react, and reinvent’.
Discuss presentationReferences
Australian Council of Deans of Education, (2001). New learning: a charter of education in Australia, Canberra.
Brown, JS, Collins, A & Duguid, P (1989). Situated cognitions and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, pp. 32-42.
Brown, JS & Duguid, P (2000). The social life of information. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Christie, P and Lingard, B. (2001), ‘Capturing complexity in educational leadership’. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association Conference, Seattle, 10-12 April.
Fullan, M, Hill, P & Crevola C.(2006). Breakthrough, London, Black Crow.
Harpaz, Y,Teaching and learning in a community of thinking. The Branco Weiss Institute for the Development of Thinking, Jerusalem.
Kotter, JP (1990). ‘What leaders really do’. In Harvard Business Review. May-June.
Senge, P et al. (1994). The fifth discipline: strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Taylor, RT (2002). ‘Shaping the culture of learning communities’. In Principal Leadership, 3(4), 42-45.
Watkins and Marsick (1993). Sculpting the learning organisation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, KE & Marsick, VJ (1999). Schools as learning communities: sculpting the learning community: new forms of working and organizing. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), pp.78-87.
Wenger, E (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, E, Snyder, W (2000). ‘Communities of practice’. In Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ms Jenny Robinson is Principal of Wanguri Primary School, in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. She is passionate about building authentic partnerships with school stakeholders (parent, staff and students) and corporate DEET.