ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S EXPERIENCE

ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION Bruce Sheppard Jean Brown Faculty of Education

Within the last decade, there have been strong calls for the development of new models of school administration which recognize the need for collaboration among teachers and school-based management (Caldwell, Smilanich, & Spinks, 1988; Royal Commission, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1994). Although school-based management is linked to school improvement and reform efforts, research suggests that the implementation of school-based management may not result in the improvements in student achievement that are anticipated by reformers (Berman & MacLauglin, 1976; Deal, 1990; Cranston, 1994; Fullan, 1993; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sarason, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1995; Sheppard & Brown, 1995). In fact, "the empirical evidence in the literature up to this point is that the majority of cases are counterproductive" (Fullan, 1995, p. 231). It is within this context of scepticism toward school reform that this research is conducted, as it seeks to determine to what extent (a) leadership training can influence (b) leadership behaviours of school leadership teams, © the development of the school as a learning organization, and (d) student outcomes.

Leadership Approach and Training

The need for strong school leadership has been supported by research on effective schools (Edmonds, 1979; Gezi, 1990; Hall & Hord, 1987; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990); school improvement (Cox, 1983; Crandall, 1983; Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Louis & Miles, 1990); innovation, change, and implementation (Fullan, 1993; Hall & Hord, 1987; McLaughlin, 1990). However, there is agreement that the concept of leadership is not well understood (Bass, 1981, Bolman & Deal, 1994; Brown, 1995a; Handy, 1985; Owens, 1995). Emerging theories are moving away from technological, rational planning models, toward cultural, collaborative approaches in which teachers are viewed as partners (Blase, 1993; 1987; Evans, 1993; Griffiths, 1988; Laroque & Coleman, 1991; March, 1988; Pellicer, Anderson, Keefe, Kelley, & McCleary, 1990; Weber, 1989). Current studies support the transformational leadership framework as appropriate when schools are engaged in change (Brown, 1994; Leithwood, 1992, 1994, 1995a; Sheppard, 1995a). The collaborative nature of such leadership is supported by research which reveals that department heads play significant roles in leadership for change (Brown, 1994). Additionally, it is based on the proposition that change cannot be left to the experts (Fullan, 1993; Glickman, 1993; Harrison, Killion, & Mitchel, 1989; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Lewis, 1989; Peters, 1992). Teachers must be leaders in the change process and they must be critical-reflective, action oriented professionals working in an environment of collaboration where they are committed to making a difference to teaching and learning (Calhoun, 1994; Fullan, 1995; O'Neil, 1995a; Sagor, 1992). Despite such studies supporting the model of leadership noted above, there exists little evidence that such leadership can be developed through training (Krug, Ahadi, & Scott, 1990). Yet, training through leadership institutes is an integral component of this emerging concept of leadership. As our research reveals weaknesses in the leadership training process, therefore, our training is modified as a means of further contributing to theory in this area.

Schools as Learning Organizations

In light of uncertainty of reform efforts, "the generative concept of the learning organization" (Fullan, 1993, p. 6) provides the basis of a promising theoretical framework for the development of improving schools. This concept is grounded in the five "disciplines" expounded by Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner (1994): the development of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. While the concept of the learning organization has developed outside of the school setting (Senge, 1990), research within education (Fullan, 1993; Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1993; Louis, 1994) supports its meaningfulness in the school context. Fullan (1993) sees this as "the new work of the principal and the teacher" (p. 66) and further contends that if we are to succeed in bringing about meaningful improvement "schools must become learning organizations" (Fullan, 1995, p. 234). In spite of such support, the relevance of this learning organization concept to education requires empirical study (Fullan, 1995; O'Neil, 1995b). The intent of this research is to provide such study, and to contribute to the development of a theory of "learning organization" in the school and school district context. It extends research of learning organization into rural and remote schools (smallest is a remote, multigrade school with 50 students, not accessible by road). Also, it addresses teacher leadership training relative to the learning organizations and how this relates to student learning.

Student Outcomes

The intent of efforts at reform in education is improved student learning (Fullan, 1995; Goodlad, 1992; McLaughlin, 1990; Murphy, 1992; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995). Goodman (1995) contends that schools have been based on a model of the efficient and productive business organization where test scores have become the essential products. Successful school reform, he argues, must be based on values other than those of efficiency and productivity. While the selection of appropriate student learning outcomes is subject to debate (Madaus, Airasian, & Kellagan, 1980), Fullan (1993) suggests that The Conference Board of Canada profile of employability skills is indicative of directions schools in Canada are looking toward. This profile suggests that employers need people who can communicate, think, and continue to learn for life; who have positive attitudes and behaviours, are able to take responsibility for their actions, and are adaptable; and who can work with others (McLaughlin, 1992). In Newfoundland and Labrador, desired student outcomes have been determined through a public consultation process (Newfoundland and Labrador Educational Indicators System, 1995). A central contribution of this research is to determine the extent to which leadership training, leadership approach, and the learning organization accounts for variance in student outcomes that have been deemed important by primary education stakeholders.

Methodology

Sample

The sample is composed of 8 schools in one school district in Newfoundland with 139 teachers and 2623 students. School size ranges from 50-530 students located in both rural (50%) and urban (50%) centres. Teams of teacher from all participating schools (38 teachers) attended a week long summer leadership institute developed and conducted by the researchers in partnership with district office personnel. There was equal representation of male and female teachers attending the leadership training. The unit of analysis for the quantitative aspect of this research is the individual teacher. The choice of the teacher as the unit of analysis is based on research which suggests that if leadership is to be effective it must be validated by the consent of individual followers. In fact a criticism of transformational leadership theory is that it presents a view of leadership that resides in the individual leader without due attention to the leader-follower relationship (Blase, 1993; Brown, 1993; Lord & Maher, 1990; Sheppard, 1995a). The focus for the qualitative aspect is the school. This choice is based on the recognition that leadership is context bound and exists within "the corridor of beliefs" which already exists in the followers (Brown, 1995b; Foster, 1989). Bringing both individual and school foci together recognizes that "leadership is interactive in multiple directions such that in schools for instance, the principal is largely shaped by the teachers, the reputation and history of the school, and the expectations that have become institutionalized over time within the school and the community" (Angus, 1989, p. 76).

Data Collection & Analysis

In all participating schools, data were collected throughout the first year. All leadership team members were asked to maintain journals and to participate in school leadership interviews. A sample of one-third of each school staff were asked to participate in school leadership interviews. Interviews were conducted quarterly, in site visits, with the first interview data being collected four months following the leadership institute. All teachers were asked to respond to two survey instruments: School Leadership Survey and Process of Professional Learning Survey (Leithwood, 1995b; Leithwood, 1995c). The survey data were collected midway through the first year. Documents analyzed include: school improvement plans, staff meeting minutes, and team meeting minutes. On-going support was provided to leadership teams in each school through both a district support network and the faculty researchers. District and school teams have agreed to provide student outcome data consistent with the Newfoundland and Labrador Educational Indicators System (1995). At this point, however, there has been no formal attempt to measure change in student indicators that were targeted by this initiative. This lack of formal measurement of these indicators is deliberate. Like Sengeet al. (1994), school and district teams and the researchers concluded that "measurements that are made prematurely will lead to erroneous conclusions" (p. 45). Only when it is reasonably certain that leadership approach is shifting toward the model promoted in training sessions and that schools are moving toward becoming learning organizations can impact be measured.

The Advantages of Partnerships

In this research, the university researchers play the role of "critical friends" and the school staffs assume a critical-reflective role which actively involves them in the research process (Lieberman, 1995, p. 3). The staff provides the closeness necessary for greater depth of understanding of practice, whereas the university researchers are more able to distance themselves in interpreting what is happening. Below is an outline of the various roles and responsibilities of the three main groups.

District

Schools

University Faculty of Education

The Partnership

Findings

The partnership model appears to work for all partners: return rate on surveys has been exceptional (86%), thereby providing an excellent sample to help understand the process. Feedback provided to the district and schools has been recognized as critical to their improvement efforts and provides endorsement of the concept of teacher as leader of change. As a result of positive feedback regarding the process, other schools have asked to become involved as partners.

School Team leadership appears to work best when the principal is recognized as a significant source of leadership as well. It appears imperative that one individual must emerge as a source of leadership; otherwise the team leadership appears to falter. Neither training nor support from the district has been sufficient to get two particular school staffs to engage in the process of school growth through team leadership. In both schools, teachers did not perceive that the principal provided leadership. While such a perception existed in a third school, changes have begun. In this school, teachers recognized the vice principal and a lead teacher as providing leadership for school improvement.

Leadership is often perceived as administration. As a result, the development of team leadership can be misinterpreted. Also, one cannot assume that all are ready for a new model of leadership. For example, some principals moving from the traditional model of administration to shared decision-making and school-based management revealed anxiety about their changing role, questioned their effectiveness, and needed on-going support. There is a need to provide principals with clear images of the emerging role, since facilitative power or "power with" appears to be confused in some cases with the abdication of responsibility or laissez-faire leadership. In another case, efforts of the Leadership Team were derailed because teachers viewed the team as "additional administration".

A District Superintendent's desire to shift leadership approach from a traditional hierarchical approach to a school-based model does not result in a quick shift either at the school or at the district level. Even when recognized as a direction to work toward, differing expectations result in frustrations at both levels. One particular district wide initiative promoted by an assistant superintendent and by some principals seemed to cause major difficulties in some schools attempting to operate in the school-based model endorsed by the superintendent. A consistent message reinforced by appropriate action from all district personnel is essential.

Teachers perceive that most leadership for school improvement comes from individuals or groups within the school. They do not perceive that program coordinators or district administrators provide much leadership in that direction, even though close examination reveals evidence to the contrary. They attribute even less leadership to parents, students, and the Department of Education. In the current sample, 72% of teachers perceive that the principal is a significant source of leadership; 54%, the whole staff; 24%, program coordinators; 19%, district administration; 12%, parents; 10%, students; and 16%, Department of Education.

Team members who attended the summer institute attribute much of their progress to the institute. Other teachers are less aware of the influence of the institute, but some recognize a shift in approach to change.

Journal keeping is a key component of this research model. It allows time for reflection and when shared with the "outside critical friends" it provides a critical component for formative evaluation of the process. While all members of the Leadership Teams agreed to keep a journal, for most it became lost in the practical realities of daily routines in the district, school, and classroom. This poses a challenge as we continue to work with teachers to develop a new model in which teachers are critical-reflective action oriented professionals who are leaders in the change process.

In the majority of schools with which we are working, the principal is recognized as the primary source of leadership for school improvement and this is complemented by a team comprised of teachers and school administrators. Leadership is perceived to promote high expectations (87%) and to be democratic (78%), participatory (70%), inclusive (70%), visionary (83%), change oriented (86%), visible (94%), supportive (90%), collaborative (83%), goal-oriented (89%), and intellectually stimulating (75%).

The positive direction of the constructs suggests that the leadership approach and the professional learning is perceived to be consistent with characteristics desirable in "Learning Organizations" that the district has been attempting to promote. In most cases, however, the score is close to the mean, suggesting that work is required on all constructs.

In one school that has been engaged in this process over a two year pilot period (Sheppard, 1995b) results indicate that the model of team leadership training directed at the development of the school as a learning organization is workable and that it contributes to improvements in teaching and learning and student outcomes. Teachers and administrators observed that efforts to implement cooperative learning as a teaching strategy within the new model was much more successful than any previous implementation attempt.

One teacher commented, There is a greater focus on this than any other initiative that we have attempted. There is far more consistency and more follow-up. As a staff we are far more like a team. We are drawn together around the implementation of cooperative learning.

Similarly, a program coordinator stated: There is more cooperative learning going on than before. There is significantly greater commitment to trying cooperative learning. There is a climate of collaboration at the school that did not previously exist. There is a feeling in the school among teachers that they can do something about what is happening in the school.... Teachers see that they have control and that this is not just another bandwagon; rather this is a step by step plan that provides the direction they believe to be necessary in their school.

The deliberate attempt to delay measurement of student outcomes has not prevented casual observations. Teachers believe that the school has fostered a culture that is conducive to learning. Students and teachers have learned the power of cooperation . Students are engaged in developing their social skills each day, they have become more tolerant of student differences, and behaviour problems and absenteeism have been significantly reduced.

The summer institute for team leadership training must include the presentation of methods and tools that assist in the application of theory and must allow practice time in their use. While teams were quite positive during the summer session and were engaged in several problem-solving sessions on team learning and school improvement, they found that back in their schools they did not have the practical experience to sustain the process toward the development of a learning organization. Also, the need for a follow-up reflective session for teams during the Fall Semester was suggested by many as a critical need.

On going support and follow-up with high expectations for change is essential. Many teams expressed the significance of follow-up by the district coordinator for school improvement and the continued presence of the "critical university friends" in providing the support and the motivation to sustain their efforts toward school growth.

Administrative structures can be major obstacles and some second-order changes are needed to facilitate the transition to a learning organization. Evidence confirms that a school structure which limits teacher flexibility inhibits collaboration and team planning. Also, downsizing, the loss of key team members, and forced transfers into the school can adversely affect the fragile environment being created, and undermine efforts at school improvement and reform.

In summary, findings from this research confirm that leadership training can influence the leadership approaches taken in schools such that team leadership is an integral component of the way schools operate and such teams provide the foundation for the school to become a learning organization. While we have not yet attempted to formally evaluate the effects on student outcomes, informal observations indicate that our current efforts show much promise. This research, however, supports other findings that training and support must be on going rather than a one-time event. Leadership patterns and professional practices in schools and school districts are deeply engrained components of the educational culture that cannot be changed by simply declaring new values. "Deep beliefs and assumptions change as experience changes, and when this happens culture changes" (Senge et al., 1994, pp. 20-21). The partnership between university researchers as "critical friends" and the educational practitioners (teachers and district office personnel) as critical-reflective professionals actively engaged in the research process provides the methods and tools that allowed teachers to explore new ideas. These new ideas result in changes in the traditional structures. Overtime, such "surface movements" begin to change aspirations, skills and capabilities, attitudes, and beliefs--change that really matters (Senge et al., 1994). Findings of this research that indicate a shift in leadership approach and the development of a culture of professional learning consistent with that found in a learning organization indicate that appropriate training can make a difference. This difference promises to improve student outcomes.

REFERENCES

Angus, L. (1989). 'New' leadership and the possibility of educational reform. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives in educational leadership. London: Falmer Press.

Bass, B. (Ed.) (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership. London: Collier Macmillan.

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovation. Educational Forum, 40(3), 345-370.

Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.

Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party's report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.

Brown, J. (1995a, June). Images of leadership: Searching for common features. Paper presented at Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal, Quebec.

Brown, J. (1995b). Grandy's River Collegiate: A case study. A technical report prepared as part of the Exemplary Schools Project. Canadian Education Association.

Brown, J. (1994). Leadership in secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.

Brown, J. (1993, April). Leadership for change in secondary schools: A team effort. Paper presented as part of a symposium "Transformational leadership and secondary school change," at the 1993 AERA annual meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Caldwell, B., Smilanich, R., and Spinks, J. (1988). The Canadian Administrator. 27(8)

Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cox, P. (1983). Complementary roles in successful change. Educational Leadership 41(3), 10-13.

Crandall, D. (1983). The teacher's role in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 6-9.

Cranston, N. (1994). Translating the 'new organization' into educational settings. Studies in Educational Administration, 60(summer), 24-31.

Deal, T. (1990). Reframing reform. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 6-12.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9(5), 28-32.

Evans, R. (1993). The human face of reform. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 19-23.

Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives in educational leadership. London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (1995). The school as a learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 230-235.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: The Falmer Press.

Gezi, K. (1990). The role of leadership in inner-city schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 12(4), 4-11.

Glickman, C. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. (1992). On taking school reform seriously. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 232-238.

Goodman, J. (1995). Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1-29.

Griffiths, D. (1988). Administrative theory. In N. J. Boyan (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 27-51). New York: Longman.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University.

Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89-107.

Handy, C. (1985). Understanding organizations. Markham, Ont.: Penguin Books.

Harrison,, C., Killion, J., & Mitchell, J. (1989). Site-based management: The realities of implementation. Educational Leadership, 3(8), 55-58.

Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. New York: The Free Press.

Krug, S., Ahadi, S., & Scott, C. (1990). Current issues and research findings in the study of school leadership. Project Report. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 946)

Laroque, L. & Coleman, P. (1991). Negotiating the master contract: Transformational leadership and school district quality. In K. Leithwood & D. Musella (Eds.), Understanding school system administration studies of the chief education officer. New York: The Falmer Press.

Leithwood, K. (1995a). Effective school district leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Leithwood, K. (1995b). The sources and nature of leadership: Staff survey. Toronto, ON: OISE.

Leithwood, K. (1995c). The process of professional learning: Staff survey. Toronto, ON: OISE.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals' practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 88(4), 5-31.

Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Building commitment for change and fostering organizational learning (Final report). Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Education.

Lewis, J. (1989). Implementing school-based management by empowering teachers. New York: J.L. Wilkerson.

Liebeman, A. (1995). The work of restructuring schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lord, R. & Maher, K. (1990). Perceptions of leadership and their implications in organizations. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Louis, K. & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.

Madaus, G., Airasian, P. & Kellagan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence, Montreal: McGraw-Hill.

March, C. (1988). Spotlight on school improvement. Sydney: Allyn & Unwin.

McLaughlin, M. (1992). Employability skills profile: What are employers looking for? Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada.

McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.

Murphy, J. (1992). Restructuring America's Schools: An overview. In C. Finn, Jr. & T. Rebarber (Eds.), Education reform in the 90's (pp.3-20). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan.

Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (eds). Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Newfoundland & Labrador Educational Indicators System (1995). St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (1994). Preparing all students for a lifetime of learning. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Department of Education.

O'Neil, J. (1995a). On lasting school reform: A conversation with Ted Sizer. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 4-9.

O'Neil, J. (1995b). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge. Educational Leadership, 52 (7), 20-23.

Owens, R. (1995). Organizational behaviour in education. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Pellicer, L., Anderson, L., Keefe, J., Kelley, E., & McCleary, L. (1990). High school leaders and their schools. Volume II: Profiles of effectiveness. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 139)

Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management. Toronto: Random House.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education. (1992) Our children our future. St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday

Senge, P., Roberts, C, Ross, R, Smith, B., Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. Toronto: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sheppard, B. (1995a, June). The transformational nature of instructional leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal, Canada.

Sheppard, B. (1995b, October). Implementing change: A success story. Paper presented at Atlantic Educators Conference, St. John's, NF, CA.

Sheppard, B. & Brown, J. (1995). A shift to school-based management in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. International Directions in Education, 4.1, 4.

Weber, J. (1989). Leading the instructional program. In School leadership: Handbook for excellence. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 309 513).Document Title