Leading Learning

Process, Themes and Issues in International Contexts

Tom O'Donoghue, Simon Clarke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781134306770
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

The study of educational leadership makes little sense unless it is in relation to who the leaders are, how they are leading, what is being led, and with what effect. Based on the premise that learning is at the heart of leadership and that leaders themselves should be learners, the Leadership for Learning series explores the connections between educational leadership, policy, curriculum, human resources and accountability. Each book in the series approaches its subject matter through a three-fold structure of process, themes and impact.

Series Editors - Clive Dimmock, Mark Brundrett and Les Bell

The notion that school transformation is dependent on exceptional leaders is increasingly seen as unrealistic and unsustainable. Instead, the idea of distributed leadership, which promotes the view that all stakeholders have complementary leadership roles to play in enhancing student learning, is now being promoted as a more useful framework for understanding schools and how they might be changed.

Subscribing to the notion of distributed leadership, O'Donoghue and Clarke identify two key groups: the 'leaders of learning' and the 'leaders for learning'. The leaders of learning – and the focus of this book – are those working at the school level to improve the quality of learning in the classroom, such as teachers, principals, pupils and involved members of the local school community. The leaders for learning are the policy-makers and administrators whose support is crucial. The authors argue that in order to be effective leaders, both groups require an understanding of:

• 
  
  

• Broad trends in contemporary leadership theory

• 
  
  

• Recent views on learning theory

• 
  
  

• The importance of teachers engaging continually in learning about their practice

• 
  
  

• The significance of creating and sustaining schools as learning organisations

• 
  
  

• Forging links between leadership and learning

The book's examination of the shifting approaches to leading learning in contemporary schools is enriched by innovative examples drawn from a range of international contexts.

Leading Learning will appeal to students involved in masters and doctoral courses relevant to the field and those undertaking programmes of school leadership preparation and development. It will also be of interest to academics working in the field of educational leadership and management.

1 Introduction

In a world characterised by enormous change there is a perceived need for educational institutions to move from their traditional bureaucratic structures where the emphasis with regard to the educative process has tended to be placed on the management of teaching, to ones which are more flexible and responsive, and where the stress is on the promotion of learning. Concurrently, it is increasingly being argued that a form of distributed leadership is integral to achieving this outcome. One consequence of the persuasiveness of the argument is that programmes for professional learning in various parts of the world are beginning to highlight the importance of the leadership capabilities of all stakeholders within various educational institu-tions in order to enhance student learning. This book on leading learning was stimulated by such developments, particularly as they relate to students, teachers and the school as an organisation. A general overview of the broad directions taken in the book is now outlined in this chapter.

The underlying argument

The focus of this book is on schools, the most common of the educational institutions. The concern is primarily with the key personnel who interact daily within the schools' sector, namely, students, teachers and school leadership teams. These personnel, of course, do not go about their activities independent of other major stakeholders, particularly parents, local communities, system administrators and senior policymakers. However, while the influence of such additional personnel is recognised throughout, it is not foregrounded. Various types of analyses, including those of a critical theory nature, of current educational policies and practices, are also not foregrounded.

One might well ponder the outcomes of the analyses of significant critical theorists and argue that they should be heeded by politicians and bureaucrats. Recently, for example, Smyth (2006, p. 279) made the provocative suggestion that as conditions conducive to learning in schools deteriorate through emphases on “accountability, standards, measurement, and high stakes testing”, an increasing number of students are making active choices that school is not for them. As Smyth sees it, there is evidence indicating that “muscular policies of testing, scripted and prescribed teaching, an ethos of competition, along with dehumanised and irrelevant curricula” are not working for the majority of students. Contentions like this are certainly very thought provoking. Our position, however, is that even if critiques of such a nature are warranted (and there are good reasons for arguing that, at the very least, they constitute an over-generalisation), it does not follow that school-level leaders cannot work within existing parameters in order to set about trying to improve the quality of students' experiences.

MacBeath (2006) presents a different challenge. In harmony with much of what we say throughout this book, he argues for a new vision of educational leadership that is more focused on fostering learning in schools than has historically been the case. We are not necessarily committed, however, to his notion that leadership, given contemporary educational structures, particularly within government education systems is, or needs to be, a ‘subversive activity’. Rather, we take the stance that leaders of learning can work within many current system-level parameters, requirements and expectations, and at the same time operate ‘openly’ in a manner aimed at improving the quality of learning in the school with the best interests of students in mind.

The most serious challenge of all is presented by Dimmock. In his work, Designing the learning-centred school (Dimmock, 2000), he tackles a demanding task, namely, that of producing a generic model for the development of a learning-centred school which is also appropriate for different learning contexts. What is required, he argues, “is a cross-cultural framework for seeking to understand the degree to which theories, research funding policies and practices can be successfully adopted in culturally diverse settings” (2000, p. 43). As Soliman (2003) has summarised, Dimmock goes on to explain the need for school design in terms of demands for accountability for student learning outcomes in school systems and system-wide monitoring of students, changes in expectations of schools to educate students for an information-based technological and competitive global economy, increases in social problems, concerns for the number of students leaving school before graduating, the resistance in schools towards changing teaching and learning practices, and the need for schools to be inclusive in the pursuit of addressing disadvantage and social justice.

For Dimmock (2000, p. 9) ‘design’ consists of “forethought, planned, intended, deliberate and comprehensive change creating desired organisational patterns”. He argues that a new and different configuration is now needed in school design to meet the changing expectations and requirements of schools in future societies. To this end, he advocates a collaborative institution-wide approach based on informed practice and a coherent mix of vision, intuition and research-driven knowledge. The core elements of his model include a curriculum based on student learning outcomes, learning processes and experiences, teaching approaches and strategies, and computer technology. He is also at pains not to neglect such elements as organisational structures, human and financial resources, leadership and organisational culture, performance appraisal, and community-school relations.

We are very much in sympathy with Dimmock's position. Also, we welcome his argument that at the point of implementation of his ideas, particularly in relation to teaching, learning and communication, it is up to each society to “work out its own adaptation and cultural interpretation of the school design precepts” (Dimmock, 2000, p. 287). The issue, however, is that in order to be implemented with fidelity senior policymakers need either to embrace his position in totality and ordain total system-level change, or else ensure their systems are devolved to such an extent that individual schools are free to redesign their approaches. While those with the power and influence should be encouraged to act along these lines, such proposals are not necessarily attractive to many who are set in their ways, nor to those like administrators in large government education systems who fear disruption. Such individuals could, however, be encouraged to promote change by focusing on leadership aimed primarily at trying to improve the quality of learning in the classroom.

Our argument is that there is much space within many contemporary education systems for adopting such a ‘bottom up’ and incremental approach to promoting initiatives aimed at improving student learning. This is to commit to the position of Smith and Lovat (2003, p. 209) that it is essential to “plan to achieve little change rather than to try to make large changes that do not eventuate”. Their view is that a change plan that can be divided into sequential parts or phases, each of which is achievable in a moderately short-term, is likely to be more successful than a large plan which requires a long time to realise. This is a principle that needs to be heeded when planning to promote any change in relation to each of the levels of learning in the school. In other words, planning to promote change aimed at improving the quality of students', teacher and organisational learning — the three levels of learning — needs to result in a number of small-scale and achievable projects to be implemented rather than one grand scheme.

It is conceded that there does not seem to be any empirical evidence to justify the case for focusing on these three levels of learning in the school as opposed to any other area when taking the first step in promoting change aimed at developing the learning-centred school. Such a focus is, however, justified on other grounds. For one thing, it involves addressing the core activities of teachers, those that mostly occupy their time and are of most concern to them on a day-to-day level. Given the importance of commitment in any change process, it is reasonable to argue that should positive results manifest themselves in this domain, and should the key stakeholders feel successful in their efforts, then a very solid foundation will be laid for maximising the possibility of gaining success in other domains.

The outcome of adopting the position being advocated here could, to put it another way, result in a new set of practices with regard to leadership and learning becoming embedded in schools. This is a notion of ‘embedding’ as a set of approaches that become central to the configuration and culture of the organisation. As Fullan (1992), Hargreaves and Fink (2005) and Schein (2004) have conceptualised it, the associated processes involve a certain amount of dislodgement and reconceptualisation. Out of this, it is hoped, can emerge consensus. This, in turn, should provide the basis for change in other areas.

From considerations so far, it should be clear that we are very much in favour of current thinking on the need for schools to move their emphases from the management of teaching to leadership for learning. We see this as being essential in its own right, while also recognising that it can be viewed as the first step in major incremental change aimed at promoting whole-school reculturing and restructuring within a learning-centred agenda. Our main concern in this book is with providing an exposition on what this can mean in relation to student learning, teacher learning and organisational learning. Integral to this exposition is that learning at each level can be enhanced through distributed leadership.

The current emphasis on distributed leadership throughout much of the literature has been stimulated by disillusionment with the notion that the transformation of schools lies with exceptional leaders. As the latter notion proved to be unrealistic and unsustainable (Timperley, 2005, p. 395) the idea of leadership as distributed across multiple people and situations began to be promoted as a more useful framework for understanding schools and how they might be changed (Copland, 2003). The challenge in this alternative approach involves thinking of leadership, as Heller and Firestone (1995) and Smylie and Hart (1990) put it, as involving role complementarities and network patterns of control.

Central to the argument in favour of distributed leadership is that leadership resides in the potential available to be released within an organisation. It is the intellectual and social capital, sometimes dormant, or unexpressed, residing within its members. The role of the leader is to harness, focus, liberate, empower and align that leadership towards a common purpose and, by so doing, build and release capacity. As Harris and Lambert (2003) see it, however, the current leadership model for school systems is not marked by learning innovation, enquiry and knowledge creation. Rather, the focus is on structures, job descriptions, targets and performance management. For them also, the solution is to have the organisation of the school redesigned and activated through distributed leadership. They foresee that a profound mind-shift is necessary for believing that everyone can contribute to leadership. Yet they insist that this belief can transform schools.

We take a much more modest position in this book. To argue that learning at the level of the student, the teacher and the organisation can be enhanced through distributed leadership is most definitely not to commit to such an approach to leadership for all of the activities of the school. In this regard, the fact that leadership is currently equated with status, authority and position cannot be overlooked. Also, this situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future with governments intensifying their leadership accountability measures. Thus, one can hardly expect those at the front line in the accountability stakes to relinquish wholeheartedly much of their authority to others. Again, however, the one area in which a major step could be taken without providing a major threat to established modes of operating is in the area of teacher, student and organisational learning.

It is also important to highlight that throughout the book the emphasis on distributed leadership for learning at the three levels within the school changes slightly in various chapters depending on the particular level being addressed. Where student learning is the main focus three propositions in relation to leadership of learning in the school are stressed. They are as follows: leadership for developing flexible learners should promote student self-regulated learning; leadership for developing flexible learners should promote learning in community; and leadership for developing flexible learners should promote learning which is problem-based. These embody ideas which we consider to be particularly helpful to educational leaders in shaping their thinking on the nature of student learning. Also, where teacher learning is the main focus, the position taken is that it is closely intertwined with students' learning. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of teachers working collaboratively, being reflective practitioners and adopting a research stance to the classroom. This is in harmony with the observation of Hargreaves (1997, p. 99) that teachers' learning should be as constructivist as the learning of their students is meant to be. In a similar vein, where organisa-tional learning is the main focus, what is stressed is that while student learning is dependent on teacher learning, and teachers' learning is enhanced by its receptiveness to students' learning needs, organisational learning is dependent on, and feeds back into, teacher learning (MacBeath, 2006). The following section elaborates on each of these three levels of learning.

The three levels of learning in the school

A useful way of conceptualising learning agendas that occur throughout the school is according to three levels (Knapp et al., 2003). We have already described these as ‘student learning’, ‘teacher learning’ and ‘organisational learning’. While they can constitute distinct foci, it is important to emphasise that they are also interdependent in a complex variety of ways; an interdependence that will vary with context, but one that always requires great sensitivity and attention on the part of school leaders. The nature of each learning agenda will now be elucidated as a precursor to the more detailed exposition presented in subsequent chapters where the implications of these specific learning agendas for a school's policy and practice are discussed.

Student learning

Put simply, the agenda for student learning is primarily concerned with building the academic and social capacity of all students in the school. For this purpose, priority of the school must be to provide the conditions and opportunities that serve to promote students' capacity in ways that will equip them for survival, success and happiness in a rapidly changing society (Bowring-Carr and West-Burnham, 1997). In this connection, it is especially important for schools to support students as flexible learners. According to Cibulka et al. (2003), there are three significant ways in which schools are better placed to nurture students as flexible learners than might have been the case in the past, namely, an enhanced understanding of individual students' innate learning capacity, a clearer concept of learning transfer, and a more developed notion of levels of learner aptitude.

Enhanced understanding of individual students' innate learning capacity highlights the importance of teachers being aware of their students' different learning styles. Research has indicated that a number of learning styles exist — such as learning by doing, or watching, or thinking — which are likely to change over time and according to context. These styles might also be associated with specific kinds of behaviour that could account for students' degree of engagement in classroom activities. Clearly, the acknowledgement that individual students have a propensity for particular styles of learning has vital implications for strategies adopted towards teachers' learning and organisational learning.

Encouraging students as flexible learners also entails a clearer concept of learning transfer. This represents a shift from a traditional understanding of learning as a demonstrated acquisition of facts to one that places more focus on applying acquired knowledge and skills to different situations. In other words, there seems to be an increasing acceptance by educators that learning is a more complex process than the memorisation...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 International developments in the learning context
• 3 International developments in the assessment of student learning
• 4 Leadership
• 5 Student learning
• 6 Teachers learning and teachers leading
• 7 Organisational learning and the intelligent school
• 8 Inspirational developments in leading learning
• 9 The importance of leaders of learning giving voice to key stakeholders
• 10 Forging links between leadership and learning
• References
• Index