This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 10:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

School Leadership &Management: Formerly SchoolOrganisationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Leadership and Team Learningin Secondary Schools-someimplications for schools: Aheadteacher's responsePeter ThomasPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Peter Thomas (1997) Leadership and Team Learning inSecondary Schools-some implications for schools: A headteacher's response, SchoolLeadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 17:3, 331-332, DOI:10.1080/13632439769881

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632439769881

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

0:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

School Leadership & Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 331± 332, 1997

Leadership and Team Learning inSecondary SchoolsÐ someimplications for schools: aheadteacher’ s responsePETER THOMASTanbridge House School, Horsham, West Sussex, UK

There is a growing body of empirical studies of what has been shown to happen in

secondary schools as a result of changes brought about by the 1988 Act. These

research-based commentaries (Pole & Chawla-Duggan, 1996 for example) provide

explanations of some of the consequences of local management of schools (LMS)

and thus an improved understanding of the challenges facing the leaders of locally

managed schools. Leithwood, Steinbach and Ryan’ s research study, makes a valu-

able contribution to this literature. Their study, although rooted in a Canadian

context, offers a provisional model for the analysis of how teams function within the

context of LMS.

A strength of the study is that it provides a possible common language with

which to describe the constructs that underpin successful team learning. Another is

that it tests the ef® cacy of the provisional model in ® ve secondary schools. The

model may well be applicable to other locally managed (`site-based’ management)

contexts. And if it can be replicated and shown to be transcontextual then it could

provide an improved conceptualisation of how to build and sustain effective teams

in secondary schools. The implications of the study for school leaders is that it could

help to establish a pro ® le of strengths and development needs within teams more

effectively and improve teachers’ personal effectiveness. The theoretical framework

is well referenced throughout for those following the sources on the constructs

directly associated with team learning.

With the advent of local management Leithwood et al.’ s research on team

learning has particular relevance. Because schools are self governing and are respon-

sible for their own future, so their survival depends solely on their own individual

efforts. They will `sink or swim’ by the effectiveness of their teams. Team learning

and supportive leadership (to create the conditions for participation) in the context

of these turbulent conditions cannot be seen as optional extras for school leaders,

but rather as prerequisites for the long-term health and success of the school.

The model analysis suggests that there are certain sets of conditions which are

essential for effective team learning (`team-think’ ) to take place. If these conditions

are not met then dysfunctional group behaviour referred to in the literature as

1363-2434 /97/030331-02 $7.00 Ó 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

0:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4

332 P. Thomas

`groupthink’ may result. It explains how team learning is inhibited or encouraged by

internal and external frame factors, by the mutual adaptation of team members’

patterns of action, the leadership style of the headteacher, as well as by the team’ s

collective culture. It shows how key intra-school factors shape the conditions for

team learning. A close reading of the model alongside the capability development

material in the NPQH and the TTA subject leader competence framework might be

helpful.

Next, the model suggests that it is possible to gauge the effectiveness of a team’ s

work along three dimensions. The implication for schools is that work teams at all

levels (tutor teams, Year and House teams, department teams, senior management

and governors’ teams) could be more effective if they were willing to evaluate their

effectiveness drawing upon these three dimensionsÐ `client feedback’ for their work,

feedback from the group to each other about team working practices and self-feed-

back about whether individual members felt comfortable in the team activity. Apart

from the pressure of time to carry out such evaluations, there could well be some

resistance to providing personal feedback (in an English context at least). Whilst I

have observed such candour from teachers, particularly in high school training days

in California, there may be a cultural resistance to discussing aspects of `personal

well being’ in the open forum of the group in the UK. Perhaps more work will need

to be done in UK schools ® rst on concepts like `critical friend’ , `re¯ ective prac-

titioner’ and `buddying’ before teams will feel comfortable with 360 degree appraisal

of their effectiveness.

There are a number of interesting issues raised in the model which might form

the basis for staff training. The conditions required for effective `team think’ and

work on gaining a better understanding of how existing team cultures operate, for

instance, could possibly form the foci for staff development days. Also, the concept

of team `self-talk’ has potential to act as a method for exploring personal effective-

ness in teamwork, as does the idea of teams re¯ ecting on `critical events’ in school

which have acted as prompts to team learning. The model, perhaps distilled as a

simple diagram to explain the dimensions and sets of variables, could be used to

support middle and senior management training, perhaps in consultation with work

on highly reliable organisations.

In this way team leaders could draw upon the constructs to ® ne tune and

strengthen their team’ s learning process. A replication study of the provisional

model framework in a series of UK secondary schools could well be the subject of

further research effort.

REFERENCES

POLE, C.J. & CHAWLA-DUGGAN , R. (1996) Reshaping Education in the 1990’ s: perspectives on

secondary study (London, Falmer Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

0:44

10

Oct

ober

201

4