1

Published in Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D. (2010)

Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht: Springer

Connecting Learning Communities:

Capacity Building for Systemic Change

Louise Stoll

London Centre for Leadership in Learning,

Institute of Education, University of London1

Piecemeal educational reform is yesterday's news. The environment is

characterised by increasingly rapid change and complexity. Meanwhile, intractable

challenges of quality and equity persist in numbers of jurisdictions, and standards

have plateaued in several systems promoting centralised strategies.

Using the same change strategies doesn't make sense, but many systems' models

are still based on 17th century scientific theories of simple cause and effect

relationships, and on trying to improve individual parts of the system. Many of these

strategies have reached the limit of their effectiveness. Against a fast moving

backdrop, reformers in some countries have turned to messages from the new

sciences that propose a world conception underpinned by webs of relationships with

implications for focusing on interconnected systems (eg Capra, 1983; Wheatley,

2006). Because each individual part of the system is affected by others and

individual actions have rippling effects on their environment a holistic view is needed

of what it will mean to improve any part of the system. In short, we're talking about

systemic change.

Bringing about systemic change is a change in itself, and a major one at that.

Sustainable change depends on an ongoing process of learning by individuals,

singly and collectively. This means both better learning and learning in new ways.

But it's not just learning. As, parts of the system previously unreached are now as

significant as those traditionally receiving all of the attention, people at all levels of

the system need to learn. Different parts of the system must also be aligned to

provide a coherent and consistent picture and strategy for change, and this means

2

that people with diverse roles in the system have to connect and learn together.

What's we're talking about is connecting learning communities. Learning

communities are inclusive, reflective, mutually supportive and collaborative groups

of people who find ways, inside and outside their immediate community to

investigate and learn more about their practice in order to improve all students’

learning. To have a system where the idea and practices of learning communities

are the norm and where learning communities connect with other learning

communities doesn't just happen; capacity building is necessary.

In this chapter, I first define what I mean by capacity and capacity building, before

exploring connected learning communities. I examine who needs to be involved and

describe an example illustrating a connected learning community. Finally, I propose

sets of learning processes and connecting conditions that appear to underlie

capacity building for systemic change that is generated through connected learning

communities.

Building capacity

What makes schools, school systems and the people within them ongoing, capable

learners? It requires going beyond identifying a number of different improvement-

related capacities. Separating out capacities insufficiently captures the complexity,

interconnectedness and potential of different facets of the change process,

especially right now. Capacity has to be viewed as a more generic and holistic

concept (Stoll, 1999). In relation to systemic educational change, it can be seen as

the power to engage in and sustain learning of people at all levels of the educational

system for the collective purpose of enhancing student learning. Capacity is a

quality that allows people, individually and collectively, routinely to learn from the

world around them and to apply this learning to new situations so that they can

continue on a path toward their goals in an ever-changing context (Stoll and Earl,

2003). It also helps them continuously to improve learning and progress at all levels,

but particularly and ultimately that of students such that their collective efficacy is

enabling them to "raise the bar and close the gap of student learning for all

students" (Fullan, 2006, p.28). Capacity, therefore, is oriented towards making a

difference for all students and in all aspects of learning (Delors et al, 1996). A

3

system with capacity is also able to take charge of change because it is adaptive. In

short, capacity lies at the root of success (Fullan, 2006).

Capacity exists at different levels: in individuals – personal capacity; in groups within

organisations; and in whole organisations, whether schools, districts or

departments/ministries of education. We've known for some time that successful

educational reform depends on teachers’ individual and collective capacity (eg

Lieberman, 1995), school capacity (King and Newmann, 2001) and system capacity

(Elmore, 2002). But the significance of the "mutually influencing and interdependent"

nature of different levels (Mitchell and Sackney, 2001) has only more recently

become clearer, and this is what matters most for systemic change. Essentially

capacity building has to attend to all levels simultaneously.

To bring about systemic change, capacity building has to be "multifaceted" (Fullan,

2006, p.85), comprising of:

creating and maintaining the necessary conditions, culture and structures;

facilitating learning and skill-oriented experiences and opportunities;

ensuring interrelationships and synergy between all the component parts

(Stoll and Bolam, 2005).

Connecting learning communities demonstrate the multifaceted nature of capacity

building at work. Who do we mean when we refer to connecting learning

communities?

Membership of connecting learning communities

We all belong to different communities. They're generally held together by shared

beliefs and understandings, interaction and participation, interdependence, concern

for individual and minority views, and meaningful relationships through personal

connections (Westheimer, 1999). Increasingly, communities aren't just face-to-face

but virtual, with soaring numbers of people connecting through social networking

4

sites. Those involved tend to view the group as a collective enterprise and, as

shared memory develops, it's passed on to newcomers. Collaboration is a norm for

most communities. But communities don't have to be concerned with learning, so in

considering capacity building for systemic change in education, those of particular

interest are ones with learning at their core, as defined above. These focus on the

learning of all of their members, and most especially on enhancing learning for and

of all children and young people.

Learning communities can be found at all levels of the educational system. Within

schools there are classroom learning communities (Watkins, 2005), including those

between students networked by technology (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1994; Brown

and Campione, 1998) that also provides opportunities for international online

student learning conferences; communities among groups of teachers sharing and

analysing their work (Little, 2002; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006; Thompson and

Wiliam, 2007), sometimes referred to as communities of practice (cf. Lave and

Wenger, 1991); and communities operating at whole school level (eg Louis, Kruse

et al, 1995; Bolam et al, 2005), frequently known as professional learning

communities, and sometimes including support staff (eg Bolam et al, 2007).

Personnel in school districts also collaborate as enquiry and learning communities

(eg Stoll and Temperley, 2008 forthcoming).

At the policy level, while knowledge is viewed as social, growing from previous ideas

and relationships (Levin, 2007), the concept of policy learning communities is little

articulated (Stoll, 2008). Scanning government websites, however, highlights cases

of such activity. For example, the Ontario Ministry of Education's Research

Coordination team, a Ministry-wide committee, has a specific remit to identify and

respond to Ministry staff's own capacity-building needs by creating new

opportunities for sharing knowledge and effective practices across the ministry as

well as offering learning sessions for colleagues. Other communities exist within the

educational system, for example, research communities, although the emphasis in

university education departments has historically often been focused on individual

achievement, tending to inhibit the kind of collaborative learning of interest here.

5

If each of these groups or organisations is viewed as a system, developing a thriving

and challenging learning community offers the potential for positive change within

any of these systems. However, it is when learning communities cross the

boundaries of particular organisations or interest groups that systemic change on a

broad scale is most likely. Any one group of stakeholders is likely to be insufficient

to serve the needs of all students in diverse contexts, as well as bringing about the

changes required in a complex and fast changing world. This suggests that a more

divergent approach to the concept of professional learning communities is needed,

to include systemic extensions with broader membership and involving divergent

knowledge bases (Stoll and Louis, 2007). The term 'professional learning

communities', itself, may come across as exclusive, even though it is intended to be

inclusive.

From a social capital perspective, this means that 'bonding' social capital – building

trust and networks with people of similar demographic characteristics – is

insufficient. 'Bridging' social capital, while still horizontal in nature, extends links to

others who don't share many of the same characteristics, whereas 'linking' social

capital (eg Grootaert et al, 2004) sees connections that are vertical in nature,

operating across power differentials.

There are increasing numbers of examples of 'bridging social capital': through

learning networks of teachers in different schools (Lieberman and Wood, 2001);

between leaders of schools, both nationally and internationally (Stoll et al, 2007);

and between whole schools (Veugelers and O'Hair, 2005; Earl and Katz, 2006), as

well as many other collaborative arrangements established for a range of

educational and financial reasons. Networking connections also exist between

superintendents of different school districts, extending opportunities for members to

co-construct new knowledge as they learn from experience and practice of peers

elsewhere.

6

In many ways, learning networks, or networked learning communities as they are

sometimes known (eg Jackson and Temperley, 2007) are professional learning

communities operating across a broader landscape. They share many

commonalities with school-based professional learning communities and some

similar goals. But their additional purposes include enlarging individual schools’

repertoire of choices, and moving ideas and good practice around the system in

order to help transform the whole system, not just individual schools, thus improving

education for all students. This lateral capacity building (Fullan, 2006) is collective

responsibility and moral purpose writ large. Teacher learning benefits are well

documented (eg Lieberman and Wood, 2001), but evidence is also emerging of

links with student outcomes (eg Kaser and Halbert, 2005; Earl et al, 2006). The

potential of learning networks' positive influence on the development of leadership

capacity is also appealing at a time when succession planning is an issue in many

countries due to impending retirements of large numbers of school principals (Pont

et al, 2008). While networked learning is seen to support sustainability (Hargreaves

and Fink, 2006a), a strong internal professional learning community is still

necessary because most new knowledge and learning gained through network

experience is channelled back into schools where changed practice has its main

impact (Earl and Katz, 2006).

Where 'linking social capital' is concerned, a long research tradition has generally

concentrated on what parents and the wider community can do for schools, although

recent research presents a multi-directional perspective (Mulford, 2007). As greater

numbers of multi-agency communities are formed to address the social, health and

wellbeing challenges that teachers clearly can't address alone (eg Cummings et al,

2007; Mitchell and Sackney, 2007), power issues need to be tackled head on, as

people ask 'whose community is this?'. This suggests that a more fruitful approach

might be to see this as bridging diverse partners of equal status. The relationship

between learning and community becomes multifaceted (Stoll et al, 2003) as well as

multi-directional. Taking parents as an example, it's possible to see learning of

community, where the school helps the parents support their children's learning and

may help promote community development; learning from community, as they share

their knowledge with the school; learning with community, as exemplified in schools

7

that involve students, their parents and teachers in intergenerational dialogue;

learning for community, to enhance relationships; and learning as community, that is

"deeply inclusive and broadly connected" and based on deep respect, collective

responsibility, appreciation of diversity, a problem-solving orientation and positive

role modelling (Mitchell and Sackney, 2007).

How can this multi-directional learning community relationship be applied to

relationships between different stakeholder communities? The following example of

the Austrian Leadership Academy (LEA, 2007) illustrates an attempt to build a

connected learning community to build systemic capacity. It was selected as a case

study during the OECD's Improving School Leadership activity (Pont et al, 2008) to

illustrate innovative practice in leadership development. In 2004 the Austrian

Minister of Education, Science, and Culture founded the Academy, in association

with the Universities of Innsbruck and Zurich. Its initial intent was to prepare school

headteachers – who possessed newly acquired autonomy but had little experience

in operating outside a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure – with the capacity to act

more independently, take greater initiative, and manage their schools though

changes entailed by a stream of government reforms. Quickly, the benefits of

involving a wider group of participants became apparent, and the Leadership

Academy (LEA) began including district inspectors, staff of teacher training

institutes, and executives from the Ministry of Education and provincial education

authorities. These participants learn together in four forums, where they are

introduced through a range of creative pedagogical techniques to research on

leadership for learning, school development and personal capacity, which they are

invited to reflect on and explore. They also select and work with a learning partner

and a collegial coaching team (3 pairs of learning partners) in and between the

forums, focusing on a development problem that each person brings to the group.

The change in relationships, attitudes, and orientation to leadership for the vast

majority of LEA participants has produced a groundswell at the various levels of the

system where people have been involved – schools, districts, regions, teacher

training institutes, and parts of the Ministry. Ministry leaders who have participated

for the most part find the programme and experience as powerful as their peers,

some particularly valuing the connections they make with school and inspector

colleagues (Stoll et al, 2007). Involvement of the head of one Ministry Directorate

8

had a particularly powerful effect on the system when he followed up his

participation by replicating LEA learning processes with all of his Directorate staff.

This example represents an effort to build systemic capacity by developing learning

and leadership connections across community boundaries. These communities –

school leaders, district and regional leaders, Ministry leaders and leaders from

teacher training institutes – are learning together and making the connections. So

what the kinds of learning processes and activities are developed in such

connecting communities?

Learning processes and activities in connecting learning communities

Learning communities engage in many joint activities. The focus here is on

processes and activities oriented towards community learning. Individuals and

groups need access to multiple sources of learning, but in connecting learning

communities the social component of learning processes takes centre stage.

Learning communities deconstruct knowledge through joint reflection and analysis,

reconstructing it through collaborative action, and co-constructing it through

collective learning from their experiences. Processes and activities involved are

interconnected and can be construed in different ways. In this chapter I have

chosen to describe them as supported practice, collaborative inquiry, knowledge

animation, joint planning and review, and meta-learning. At the heart of all of this

activity are dialogue and learning conversations (see Figure 1).

9

Figure 1: Learning processes and activities

Dialogue and

learning

conversations

Dialogue and

learning

conversations

Col

labo

rativ

e

enqu

iry

Meta learning w

ith

peers

Kno

wle

dge

anim

atio

n

Supported practice

Dialogue and learning conversations

Dialogue is the key mechanism by which members of communities connect; not

discussion or debate. Debate depends on the dominance of one position over

another, while discussion avoids ‘undiscussables’, blocking true and honest

communication (Bohm, 1985). Dialogue is a critical community process, although

difficult to achieve, because all participants play equal roles, suspending their

individual assumptions as they enter into a genuine "thinking together" (Senge

1990). In connecting learning communities, dialogic processes are oriented towards

articulating and exploring members' tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Through dialogue, presuppositions, ideas and beliefs are brought to the surface,

examined and challenged. Collective intelligence is harnessed, and new ideas and

practices are created as initial knowledge is enhanced or transformed.

Learning conversations involve dialogue but the learning goal is more overt. A

learning conversation in connecting learning communities can be seen as a planned

and systematic approach to professional dialogue that supports community

members to reflect on their practice. As a result, they gain new knowledge which

10

they use to improve their practice (definition adapted from GTC, 2004). Reflection

on process is intentionally built in. Learning conversations typically feature

questioning and active listening.

Both dialogue and learning conversations are fundamental to the process of

connecting learning communities. When operating at their optimum level, the

following learning processes and activities all feature genuine dialogue and actively

promote learning conversations.

Supported practice

New ways of learning don’t come easily: learning means coming to terms with

different ideas and ways of doing things. This usually necessitates trying something

out again and again, tinkering (Huberman, 1998) working at it, feeling

uncomfortable for a while, and experiencing new responses. A systematic review of

evidence on the effect of sustained, collaborative continuing professional

development on teaching and learning highlights benefits of peer support to

teachers' practice (Cordingley et al, 2003). Learning and teaching are strengthened

when teachers support each other in examining new methods, questioning

ineffective practices, and supporting each other's growth (Little, 2005), for example

through focused peer observation and feedback across communities, coaching and

mentoring. In connecting learning communities, particularly those involving

stakeholders with diverse knowledge bases and skills, supported practice is likely to

be enhanced by different partners bringing an open mind to the process, acting as

critical friends (Costa and Kallick, 1993), and asking challenging but supportive

questions that lead their partner to reflect deeply on their practice.

Collaborative inquiry

Collaborative inquiry is a key learning process, where learning and inquiry are

facilitated, encouraged, challenged and co-constructed (Jackson and Street, 2005).

11

Inquiry can be the means by which teachers identify important issues related to

learning, become self-regulated drivers for acquiring the necessary knowledge to

solve the issues, monitor the impact, and adjust practice as necessary (Timperley et

al, 2007). As a basis for professional learning, inquiry builds teachers' knowledge of

their own practice (Cochrane Smith and Lytle, 2001). Here, colleagues from

different schools, agencies or other stakeholder groups throughout the system

decide on a common issue as an inquiry focus and commit to exploring this together

using common methodology. Sometimes, they gather data in their own site while at

other times they collect data from each other's sites before analysing the data

jointly. Collaborative review activities, such as moderating samples of students'

work across sites, or reviewing support for students and their families across a

whole community partnership, also provide data for such analysis.

Evidence-based dialogue carried out in a spirit of inquiry has the potential to

promote powerful professional learning because as people engage in conversations

about what evidence means, new knowledge can emerge as they come across new

ideas or discover that ideas that they believe to be true don’t hold up when under

scrutiny and this recognition is used as an opportunity to rethink what they know

and do (Earl and Timperley, 2008). Such collaborative inquiry skills are new for

many educators which mean investing time and expert support in their development

(Earl and Katz, 2006).

Knowledge animation

Sharing knowledge between different communities – including learning experiences,

the findings of collaborative inquiry and other research – can be challenging. What

makes sense to and works well one community may not easily translate, and yet a

core activity of connecting learning communities is sharing knowledge that might

help enhance others' practice. Ways are needed to bring knowledge to life such that

others can engage with the ideas, locate them within their context and in relation to

prior experiences and learning, make meaning, and construct new knowledge from

them that can be used to develop their practice. This learning is social as learners

12

test the veracity of their beliefs and knowledge by comparing them to the beliefs and

knowledge of others and together they relate this to other external knowledge,

processing it jointly and thereby creating new knowledge. A model of three fields of

knowledge from England's National College for School Leadership's Networked

Learning Communities (NCSL 2006) programme captures this relationship (see

Figure 2).

Figure 1: Three Fields of Knowledge

I describe this process of connections as knowledge animation. The word ‘animate’

comes from the Latin word ‘anima’ which means breath, life or soul. Animate means

to bring to life, put in motion. It suggests action and movement, dynamism and

vibrancy, invigoration and innovation. The focus of knowledge animation is helping

people to learn and use knowledge generated elsewhere and, through it to create

valuable new knowledge (Stoll, 2008). Knowledge animation can be seen as ways

of making knowledge accessible and mobile to help people make the necessary

learning connections that enable them to put knowledge to use in their contexts. As

learning communities generate knowledge they want to share, they need to be

thinking of knowledge animation strategies that will help others make the necessary

What is known The knowledge

from theory, research and best practice elsewhere

What we know The knowledge of those involved eg

practitioners, policy makers, and context knowledge

New knowledge The new knowledge that can be created

together through collaborative work

13

learning connections, also ensuring that they engage in quality assurance

processes so they do not share mediocre practice. Knowledge animation is also a

way that the research community can connect with practitioner and policy

communities.

Meta-learning with peers

Members of learning communities need to understand their own learning and

internalise learning as a ‘habit of mind’. Meta-learning (Watkins et al, 1998) not only

means each member of a community demonstrating that they are a learner, but also

engaging in in-depth learning about their own learning: their goals, strategies,

feelings, effects and contexts of learning. In particular, in connecting learning

communities, it means taking time to focus together on what all of the diverse

members understand about their collective learning and knowledge creation, the

conditions that support these, and what these mean for the way they collaborate.

Conditions supporting learning community connections

Processes and activities that connecting learning communities engage in depend on

the right supporting conditions to motivate and sustain them. Here, I focus on three

key conditions – a common culture, trusting and respectful relationships and

supportive structures – and a fourth overarching one, leadership (see Figure 3).

14

Figure 3: Conditions supporting learning processes and activities

Dialogue and

learning

conversations

Dialogue and

learning

conversations

Col

labo

rativ

e

enqu

iry

Meta learning w

ith

peers

Kno

wle

dge

anim

atio

n

Respectful, trusting

relationships

Learning-friendly culture

Supporti

ve s

truct

ures

Supported practice

Leadership +

external

facilitation

Leadership +

external

facilitation

Leadership +

external

facilitation

Leadership +

external

facilitation

A common culture

Communities' values and beliefs play a major role in how they see themselves and

operate, the norms of acceptable behaviour and practice and even the language

they use to express themselves. Lave and Wenger (1992) propose that when

learning in communities of practice, participants gradually absorb and are absorbed

in a ‘culture of practice’, giving them exemplars that lead to shared meanings, a

sense of belonging and increased understanding. The kind of deep learning

processes on which learning communities depend are best supported and nurtured

in a culture that values such processes and creates opportunities for them to occur.

This requires two shifts in mindset and expectation at all levels of the system: first,

that engaging in collaborative learning is not just other people's business – everyone

must keep learning; second that whenever people are learning, they are not only

learning for themselves, but on behalf of others (NCSL, 2006) – this is the

commitment to a wider moral purpose that characterises a systemic approach.

15

A challenging issue when different learning communities connect is coming to

common understandings because the communities often use different language. So,

while educators tend to see a child as a 'learner', for parents he or she is 'my child',

whilst social workers may see an 'abused child' and health workers tend to see a

'patient'. This creates opportunities for misunderstanding and conflict as learning

communities consider the purposes for and focus of their collaboration and when

they are implementing plans. Openness to learning about other communities is

therefore essential; unless people make the effort to understand where others are

coming from, the potential of connecting learning communities is unlikely to be

realised.

Trusting, respectful and equal relationships

Connecting learning communities is a human and emotional enterprise with the

associated complexity of bringing about change. Developing social capital depends

on positive relationships (Field, 2003) and working together productively requires

collegiality and interdependence between people that allows serious challenge and

adjustment of practice; as Earl and Katz (2006) have described learning networks,

"rigorous and challenging joint work". While personal friendships aren't necessary,

dysfunctional relationships clearly have a negative effect. Each person needs to feel

that they are a valued participant with something to offer (Mitchell and Sackney,

2007). Without a climate of trust and respect, people don't feel safe to take the risks

associated with collaboration, open dialogue and opening up their practice to

potential scrutiny by others. Equality is also important in the orientation to learning

processes; for example how coaching group members involved in the Austrian

Leadership Academy rotated roles such that no one person becomes the sole

expert. Coaching therefore becomes an equal partnership where both parties learn

(Robertson, 2008).

Social trust among members of staff has been found to be the strongest facilitator of

professional community within schools (Bryk et al, 1999). A base level of such trust

seems necessary for learning communities to emerge. In networks and online

communities, collaborative relationships appear to build trust and respect, essential

16

for willingness to collaborate, risk taking and the exchange and development of

ideas (Kahne et al, 2001). This becomes particularly important in contexts where

schools have been used to a climate of competition, and also seems to be

predicated on networks involving voluntary participation and collaboration. Building

trust across diverse communities can be even more challenging, where hostile

perceptions of other groups may have previously prevailed. Trusting relationships

are insufficient on their own, but the evidence appears overwhelming that they are

essential to connect learning communities if there is to be any chance of success.

Supportive structures

Structures shape organisations' capacity to develop learning communities. At their

best, structures enable better and deeper communication between members of

learning communities. While coordination, communication mechanisms, joint

governance structures and collaborative plans are all important, I have chosen here

to focus on two particular structures, time and space.

Time is a critical resource for any meaningful learning (Stoll et al, 2003). Talk,

exchange about and joint reflection on professional issues are key elements of the

collaborative activity necessary to develop and connect learning communities.

These require time, which doesn't only mean being able to cover staff who engage

in network activities, including visiting other schools or attending meetings in the

local community, but how any of the organisations involved plan and organise their

time such that learning with and from communities beyond them can be fed back

into their internal learning community and reconstructed to create new knowledge

appropriate to their context and needs. The challenge is to find creative ways to

deal with the perennial challenges of time, or else learning community activities just

become an ‘add on’ to an already overloaded agenda. In the Austrian example, time

was allocated for the learning and networking sessions, although some participants

talked of challenges of finding time and efforts to structure in time to follow up

outside these sessions.

17

Space can also be a facilitating condition, and one with interesting shifts in

meaning. In schools, professional exchange is facilitated by physical proximity (eg

Louis, Kruse et al, 1995), for example teachers in a department having

neighbouring classrooms and interdependent teaching roles, such as team teaching

and joint planning. In learning networks, the need for equality and equal access

between partners suggests that meetings and school and classroom visits should

be rotated around schools, whilst similar concerns in extended learning

communities implies that meetings should either be rotated around the different

community partner locations eg schools, health centres, police stations etc or held

within neutral community locations such as community centres or coffee shops.

Coffee houses were known in the 18th Century as locations for stimulating and

sociable conversations, offering a combination of both intimate and private spaces

as well as ones that were public and open to speakers of all status, wealth or power

(Ellis, 2004). In the coffee house, everyone's contributions were treated as equal.

Community space now includes the virtual space through which networks of users

of the internet connect and communicate. In this world of mass collaboration

through 'wikinomics', democratic networks of individuals are sharing, adapting, and

updating knowledge (Tapscott and Williams, 2008). The internet also provides a

connecting communication mechanism when time to meet is hard to find.

Essentially, connecting learning communities means rethinking the meaning of

'location' and 'space'.

Leadership and external facilitation

Leadership provides the energy source; it is the umbrella within which all other

conditions and processes of connecting learning communities sit. Communities

depend on key individuals' involvement to keep processes going and facilitate

enabling conditions. In learning communities within, between and beyond schools,

leadership isn't just the realm of senior leaders in organisations, although their

commitment is important (eg Bolam et al, 2005; Earl and Katz, 2006). Rather, the

evidence points to the importance of distributed leadership; reciprocal leadership

actions of people at different levels and from various stakeholders. Distributed

18

leadership and empowerment, important for professional learning communities

within schools (Hargreaves and Fink, 2006b), also contributes to success of learning

networks (Hopkins et al, 2003; Wohlstetter et al, 2003), with decisions being taken

at the place of greatest action. Taking distributed leadership seriously means being

committed to collective responsibility.

Leadership is a facilitator, but external facilitation and support for connecting

learning communities can also make a difference, as the example highlights.

External agents may bring specialist expertise as mediators of community dialogue,

or supporting networks’ inquiry efforts, for example by helping members interpret

and use data (Lee, 2008). Facilitation takes on a particularly significant role in

networks and networked learning communities, and can be key to success

(Wohlstetter et al, 2003).

Conclusion

Systemic capacity building depends on harnessing and channelling collective

energy. It means paying attention to developing deep and positive learning

relationships within and across different levels of the system and connecting

educators with communities and agencies whose interests or remits go beyond

education but who, fundamentally, share a common interest in the present and

future wellbeing and success of children and young people. Such collaborative,

connected learning can be extremely powerful as common understandings and

shared knowledge are co-constructed, but this depends on serious and equal

participation of members of diverse communities. Such collective commitment and

openness takes time and effort to develop, but is essential if learning communities

are to connect meaningfully and achieve systemic change.

References

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S. and Wallace, M. with Greenwood, A.,

Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A. and Smith, M. (2005) Creating and Sustaining

19

Effective Professional Learning Communities. Research Report 637. London DfES

and University of Bristol.

Bohm, D. (1985) Unfolding Meaning. New York: Doubleday

Bolam, R., Stoll, L. and Greenwood, A. (2007) The involvement of support staff in

professional learning communities, in L. Stoll and K. S Louis (eds) Professional

Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open

University Press/McGraw Hill.

Brown, A. L. and Campione, J. C. (1998) Designing a community of young learners:

theoretical and practical lessons, in N. M. Lambert and B. L. McCombs (eds) How

Students Learn: Reforming Schools Through Learner-Centered Education.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E. and Louis, K. S. (1999) Professional community in Chicago

elementary schools: facilitating factors and organizational consequences,

Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, (Supplement): 751-781.

Capra, F. (1983) The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture.

London, Flamingo.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L. (2001) Beyond certainty: taking an inquiry stance

on practice, in A. Lieberman and L. Miller (eds) Teacher Caught in the Action:

Professional Development that Matters. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. and Evans, D (2003) The Impact of

Collaborative cpd on Classroom Teaching and Learning. In: Research Evidence in

Education Library. Version 1.1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research

Unit, Institute of Education

Costa, A. L. and Kallick, B. (1993) Through the lens of a critical friend, Educational

Leadership, 51 (2): 49-51.

20

Cummings, C., Dyson, A., Muijs, D., Papps, I., Persona, D., Raffa, C, Tiplady, L.

and Todd, L. (2007) Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools Initiative: Final

Report. RR 852. Nottingham: DfES.

CUREE (2003) Early Messages from the Networked Learning Communities: Some

Implications for Policy. Summary prepared for the Developing Strategic Networking

and Collaboration Project. Coventry: CUREE.

Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, A., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham,

W., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., Padrón Quero, M., Savané, M-A., Singh, K.,

Stavenhagen, R., Suhr, M. W. and Nanzhao, Z. (1996) Learning: The Treasure

Within - Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the

Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.

Earl, L. and Katz, S. (2006) How Networked Learning Communities Work. Centre for

Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 155. Jolimont, Victoria: CSE.

Earl, L. and Timperley, H. (2008) (eds) Professional Learning Conversations:

Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement. Dordrecht: Springer.

Ellis, M. (2004) The Coffee House: A Cultural History. London: Weidenfeld &

Nicholson.

Elmore, R. (2002) Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement.

Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Field, J. (2003) Social Capital. London: Routledge.

Fullan, M. (2005) System Thinkers in Action. London: Innovation Unit, DfES.

Fullan, M. (2006) Turnaround Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21

Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. and Woolcock, M. (2004) Measuring Social

Capital, Working paper no. 18. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

GTC (2004) The Learning Conversation: Talking Together for Professional

Development. Birmingham: General Teaching Council for England.

Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2006a) Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2006b) Redistributed leadership for sustainable

professional learning communities, Journal of School Leadership, 16 (5): 550-565.

Hatch, T. (2001) It takes capacity to build capacity, Education Week, 20 (22): 44, 47.

Hopkins, D. (2003) Understanding Networks for Innovation in Policy and Practice, in

OECD (ed) Networks of Innovation: Towards New Models for Managing Schools

and Systems. Paris: OECD.

Huberman, M. (1983) Recipes for busy kitchens: a situational analysis of routine

knowledge use in schools, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4 (4): 475-

510

Jackson, D. and Street, H. (2005) Introduction, in H. Street and J. Temperley (2005)

(eds) Improving Schools Through Collaborative Enquiry. London: Continuum.

Jackson, D. and Temperley, J. (2007) From professional learning community to

networked learning community, in L. Stoll and K. S Louis (eds) Professional

Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open

University Press/McGraw Hill.

22

Kahne, J., O’Brien, J., Brown, A. and Quinn, T. (2001) Leverage, social capital and

school improvement: the case of a school network and a comprehensive community

initiative, Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (4): 429 – 461.

Kaser, L. and Halbert, J. (2005) What Is the Inquiry Network in BC Learning From

Rural Schools? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International

Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Barcelona, January.

Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Mulford, B., Falk, I. and Prescott, L. (2001) More than

Education: Leadership for Rural School-Community Partnerships. Canberra: Rural

Industries Research and Development Corporation.

King, M. B. and Newmann, F. M. (2001) Building school capacity through

professional development: conceptual and empirical considerations, The

International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (2): 86-93.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LEA (2007) Leadership Academy: Generation I Executive Summary. bm:ukk.

www.leadershipacademy.at/index.en.php

Lee, L. E. (2008) Honey, wooden spoons and clay pots: the evolution of a

Lithuanian learning conversation, in L. Earl and H. Timperley (eds) Professional

Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement. Dordrecht:

Springer.

Levin, B. (2007) Knowledge for Action in Education Research and Policy: What we

know, what we don't know and what we need to do. Paper presented at the German

Ministry EU Conference on Knowledge for Action in Education Research and Policy,

March.

Lieberman, A. (1995) Practices that support teacher development: transforming

conceptions of professional learning, Phi Delta Kappan (April), 591-596.

23

Lieberman, A. and Wood, D. (2001) When teachers write: of networks and learning,

in A. Lieberman and L. Miller (eds) Teacher Caught in the Action: Professional

Development that Matters. New York: Teachers College Press.

Little, J. W. (2002) Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: opening

up problems of analysis in records of everyday work, Teaching and Teacher

Education, 18 (8): 918-46.

Little, J. W. (2005) Nodes and Nets: Investigating Resources for Professional

Learning in Schools and Networks. Unpublished paper. Nottingham: NCSL.

Louis, K S, Kruse, S D and Associates (1995) Professionalism and Community:

Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2007) Extending the learning community: a broader

perspective embedded in policy, in L. Stoll and K. S Louis (eds) Professional

Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open

University Press/McGraw Hill.

Mulford, B. (2007) Building social capital in professional learning communities:

importance, challenges and a way forward, in L. Stoll and K. S Louis (eds)

Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas.

Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.

McLaughlin, M. W. and Talbert, J. E (2006) Building School-Based Teacher

Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student

Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000) Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a

Learning Community. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

24

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How

Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

NLC (2006) Learning about Learning Networks. Nottingham: NCSL.

Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008) Improving School Leadership:

Volume 1 - Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD.

Robertson J (2008) Coaching Educational Leadership Building Leadership Capacity

through Partnership. London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building

communities, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3): 265-83.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. London: Century Business.

Stoll, L. (1999) Realising our potential: understanding and developing capacity for

lasting improvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10 (4): 503-32.

Stoll, L. (2008) Leadership and policy learning communities: promoting knowledge

animation, in P. Sahlberg (ed) Policy Learning in Action: ETF Yearbook 2008.

Torino, Italy: European Training Foundation.

Stoll, L. and Bolam, R. (2005) Developing Leadership for Learning Communities, in

M. Coles and G. Southworth (eds) Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of

Tomorrow. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Stoll, L. and Earl, L. (2003) Making it Last: Building Capacity for Sustainability, in B.

Davies and J. West-Burnham (eds) The Handbook of Educational Leadership and

Management. London: Pearson Education.

25

Stoll, L., Fink, D. and Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning (And It’s About Time).

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Stoll, L. and Louis, K.S. (2007) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence,

Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.

Stoll, L., Moorman, H. and Rahm, S. (2007) School leadership development

strategies: the Austrian Leadership Academy, a case study report for the OECD

Improving School Leadership Activity, in Pont, D., Nusche, D. and Hopkins, D. (eds)

Improving School Leadership Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership. Paris:

OECD.

Stoll, L. and Temperley, J. (2008, forthcoming) Creative leadership: a challenge of

our times? School Leadership and Management.

Tapscott, D and Williams, A. D. (2008) Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration

Changes Everything. Revised edition. London: Atlantic Books.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H and Fung, I. (2008) Teacher Professional

Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). New Zealand:

Ministry of Education and the University of Auckland.

Thompson, M and Wiliam, D. (2007) Tight but Loose: A Conceptual Framework for

Scaling Up School Reforms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.

Veugelers, W. and O' Hair, M. J. (eds.) (2005) Network Learning for Educational

Change. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

Wheatley, M. (2006) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a

Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Watkins, C. (2005) Classrooms as Learning Communities: What's in it for Schools?

Abingdon: Routledge.

26

Watkins, C., Carnell, E, Lodge, C., Wagner, P. and Whalley, C. (1998) Learning

About Learning. Coventry: National Association for Pastoral Care in Education.

Westheimer, J. (1999) Communities and consequences: an inquiry into ideology

and practice in teachers’ professional work, Educational Administration Quarterly,

35 (1): 71-105.

Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Chau, D. and Polhemus, J. (2003) Improving schools

through networks: a new approach to urban school reform, Educational Policy, 17

(4): 399-430.

1 With grateful thanks to Lorna Earl and Julie Temperley who commented on an earlier draft.