Building Leadership and Facilitation Capacity in Networked Learning Communities

Building leadership and facilitation capacity in Networked Learning Communities

Abstract

Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) is a development and research programme involving six percent of all schools in the United Kingdom (UK). In a quickly moving context of the NLC programme the approach to developments are iterative and framed, broadly, by six ‘Levels of Learning’ and four strands of research questions. The programme’s focus on ‘development’ is deliberate and reflects a set of values which requires network members to make a commitment to ‘Learn from, with and on-behalf of each other’. Learning for improvement (self, role, and context) is central to NLCs. It requires purposeful leadership and facilitation in the change process that challenges, brokers and supports learning at all levels in and between networks. Therefore distributed leadership in NLCs becomes axiomatic as a way for networks to transform and be transformative.

This paper reports on emerging findings about the evolving leadership and facilitation of Networked Learning Communities (NLCs). Challenges of distributing leadership and facilitation are discussed (e.g. developing and sustaining inter-dependence – shifting between individual and network) and further research foci identified.

Background

What is a Networked Learning Community?

The OECD describes Networked Learning Communities as “…purposefully led social entities that are characterised by a commitment to quality, rigour and a focus on outcomes.” OECD goes on to say that NLCs:

• are effective in supporting innovation in times of change;
• promote the dissemination of good practice;
• enhance the professional development of teachers;
• support capacity building in schools;
• mediate between centralised and decentralised structures;
• contribute to the re-structuring and re-culturing of educational organisations and systems.

(OECD, 2000)

NLCs are task-oriented, focussed on what they want to achieve when they are established. The notion that networks can generate particularly powerful forms of learning and the way in which this idea is given expression by practitioners is a key challenge. It is summed up within a Networked Learning Community as encapsulating a set of values which requires network members to make a commitment to:

Learn from each other

Learn with each other

Learn on behalf of each other’

Collaboration, based on social processes within and between NLCs, becomes the key mediating activity intended to develop and extend relationships and trust to enhance the potential for ‘networked learning’. Harris (2004) suggests, “the key question is what types or forms or models of leadership in schools maximise student learning and contribute to school improvement?” (p. 12). In a NLC purposeful leadership and facilitation increases in complexity as interrelationships between self, role and context are increased; intensified and evolve. Therefore distributed leadership in NLCs becomes axiomatic as a way for networks to transform and be transformative.

Changing concepts of leadership – from individual to collaborative

An enduring feature of leadership in the literature (particularly transformational leadership) is the agency of the leader in establishing direction; developing people and aligning internal and external demands and goals (e.g. Fullan, 1996; Geijsel and Sleegers, Leithwood and Jantzi, 2003; Gunter, 2002; Kotter, 1997). This feature takes on, potentially, new dimensions when situated within a Networked Learning Community from one of ‘individual leader agency’ to “collective agency incorporating the activities of many individuals in a school [network]” (Harris, 2004, p. 14). From a practitioner’s perspective the need to have ‘leadership at all levels’ can be viewed as a practical response to the growing complexities of organisation systems and is reflected in the literature in this field (Raelin, 2003; Spillane et al, 1999).

The variety of terms indicates a complex set of constructs about leadership that does not reside with one individual or solely from the top of the organisation. For Denis, Lamothe, Langley, (2001) it includes the idea of a ‘leadership constellation’ where no member can impose a vision and members work harmoniously. This is fragile and involves complex relationships within the team, in the organisation and with the environment. Lambert et al (2002), share this view, arguing it is ‘the reciprocal processes that enable participants in an educational community to construct meanings that lead towards a shared purpose’ (p 36). The notion of shared leadership and the idea of distributed leadership are some times used interchangeably (Gregory, 1996) to indicate a move away from top down/great person and ‘lionised hero’ views of leadership to the idea that leadership can be shared at all levels and that the attributes of leadership can be distributed. Dentico (1999) uses the term collaborative leadership to integrate leadership with the characteristics of the learning organisation. Locke (2003) identifies the difference between top down, bottom up, shared egalitarian and integrated models of leadership. He argues for the integrated form in which a top leader works with staff and staff with each other to lead an organisation, but the top leader’s role remains distinct. Locke’s integrated model draws attention to two aspects of this new approach to leadership; first, collaboration is essential if the organisation is not to be fragmented, and second, the top leader’s role is not eroded but made more complex. The use of internal authority and the emotional challenges of leadership (Hirschhorn, 1998) need to be incorporated into new models of leadership/development.

Sergiovanni (1992,1996) and West-Burnham (1997) articulate the implications of change on the ‘mindscape’ of leadership. They relate the notions of unpredictability and rapid change to the need for organisations to be flexible and led in distributed, non-hierarchical ways. Another example is Fullan, 2001, who explores the dimensions of leadership which he considers to be requisite for successful negotiation with an environment which is changing both rapidly and in unpredictable ways.

Whilst Fullan’s (2001) and West-Burnham’s (1997) models for the components, or dimensions of leadership, are not the same in all respects, there is a commonality between them with underpinning concepts of closely integrated cognitive, meta-cognitive, emotional and spiritual dimensions to leadership in a climate of change – leadership which both supports innovation and organisational transformation and which is rooted in values which can withstand and transcend ‘fashion’.

Gronn’s (2000) view is that in schools there are indicators that distributed leadership is an idea ‘whose time has come’, (p 333). Lambert (2002) also argues strongly for a model of shared leadership, re-conceptualising leadership in schools as a responsibility that is organisation wide, or ‘the professional work of everyone’. Hence, the emergence of integrated theories, such as, transformational and shared instructional (Marks and Printy, 2003) and what appears to be a greater focus on the development of dimensions of leadership (Stoll et al, 2002) to cope with dynamic and diverse contexts and situations:

• ensuring learning at all levels;
• using evidence to promote inquiry-mindedness;
• building external community and
• bridging community – dealing with the school-system interface.

Harris (2003) demonstrates this through evidence from her research on school improvement projects and proposes that Teacher Leadership is distributed leadership where collaboration and collegial ways of working enable all teachers to take up leadership and enhance a school’s capability for change and development. Bennett, Wise and Harvey (2003) caution, however, that there is little agreement on the meaning of distributed leadership and perhaps it is best to think of the term as a way of thinking about and reflecting on leadership. Thus the encouragement to improve school leadership and pupil achievement by incorporating the ideas of collaborative, shared and distributed leadership is both recent, powerfully argued but underdeveloped in terms of potential learning methods that can support those leading and facilitating change in NLCs (e.g. co-leaders; lead-learners; headteachers) in re-learning and reviewing their implicit models of leadership and their practices as leaders.

Methods

Conceptual frame

The Networked Learning Community programme’s quickly moving context and commitment to capacity building (i.e. essentially moving from a state of dependency to inter-dependence and sustainability of the NLC) has led to the deliberate orientation of a ‘development’ and ‘research’ programme. In this set-up the approach to developments are iterative and informed, conceptually, by transformational theories and distributed models of leadership.

To support and further guide development and research two key frames have been developed (i.e. ‘Levels of Learning’ and ‘Research strands’). These frames guide activity to develop programme baseline data; challenge; synthesise; ‘spot’ and judge, iteratively, the quality of developments (e.g. processes; products and impact) for the programme and networks (See Appendix 1).

Data sources

Utilisation of data at the point of collection is a key aim. As such, activity of the programme reflects a range of methods exploring, in different ways and from different perspectives (e.g. Co-leaders; teachers; headteachers; teaching assistants) the same general question of how does a NLC build sustainable leadership and facilitation capacity.

This paper draws on a number of development activities and empirical research in progress within and associated with the NLC programme:

• NLC programme event enquiry activities and evaluations;
• NLC annual reviews;
• NLC Levels of Learning results;
• Development and enquiry programme data (e.g. Collaborative Leadership Learning)
• NLC Facilitator enquiries;
• NLC programme internal and externally commissioned research projects;
• New Visions (headteacher learning programme internal and external evaluation).

The activities reflect a range of development and research methods (of varying breadth and depth) being utilised to explore leadership and facilitation:

• interviews;
• focus group discussions;
• drawings and tables – networkcharts;
• critical incident reflections;
• journals;
• participant observations;
• participant evaluations;
• video;
• literature reviews.

Emerging findings about leadership and facilitation of NLCs

Schools are being encouraged to improve school leadership and pupil achievement by incorporating the ideas of collaborative, shared and distributed leadership. In the Networked Learning Communities programme 137 networks (representing 6% of all schools in the UK) are involved in building leadership and facilitation capacity. Through a range of development and research activities the programme is learning about Networked Learning Community leadership and facilitation with respect to, for example:

• Beliefs, values and motivations
• Roles
• Contexts

Beliefs, values and motivations

Being a NLC is referred to, consistently, by network members as an opportunity to put ‘learning at the heart’ of how they think and act. This belief brings with it challenges for the network (e.g. alignment and re-alignment of self, role and contextual needs and foci). Headteachers / Co-leaders talk, particularly, of a need to ‘be interested in developing yourself as a learner’ while also developing an inter-dependent agenda for learning across the network (i.e. ‘working and learning together to develop a shared purpose’; ‘influencing change together’; ‘giving equal voice and value contributions’). Such reorientations of mindset and practice are significant in that:

“When NLC applications were made, very few practical strategies were identified to support head teacher learning and leadership learning. By contrast, 24% of [NLC programme Facilitator] enquiry reports made reference to head teacher learning, the majority in the context of rekindled ‘professional energy’. This suggests that schools in many NLCs are grappling with aspects of leadership learning for the first time. As with teacher peer to peer learning, networked learning appears to be offering heads unprecedented opportunities for risk-taking in a safe environment, although a few (4%) of reports highlighted the particular challenges heads faced in this type of ‘exposure’” (CUREE report, September 2003; p. 16).

‘Joint learning and activity’ is a key motivating factor to become a NLC. It is seen by network members as a way to:

• address the isolation that schools feel (e.g. The ‘Levels of Learning’ results from NLCs in 2003 reflect that schools felt isolated, for example, question 4d - We share the lessons that groups of teachers have learned with other teachers and network: 62% said rarely and sometimes, 10% said regularly).[1]
• Shift, legitimately, the focus to learning for improvement of all network members (‘shifting our discussions from ‘budgets and boilers’ to collaborative leadership learning’) and this is re-energising.
• Build sustainable leadership and facilitation through a distributed leadership model.

Therefore leadership and facilitation of a NLC and ‘being’ a NLC has an ideological appeal providing a way to operate within the system but at the same time be critical of it (Grace, 1995):

“So much of our work in schools has been isolated and has been driven largely by other people’s agenda’s but this process has meant that we can create our own vision for ourselves and through networking make those visions come about in reality and helping every child and every parent and ever governor and every teacher in our network to experience what it's like to grow with other people and with their energy and excitement to support you.”

(Headteacher, ‘What is a Networked Learning Community?’ NLC, CDROM, 2004)

Roles

“People change organisations” (Fullan, 1996, p 61). Across the 137 networks a number of roles are surfacing as prominent in a network’s leadership and facilitation. These include, ‘co-leaders’; ‘headteachers’; ‘middle leaders’ and ‘steering groups’.

Co-leaders

Number and origin

As part of a network’s submission to become a NLC they are asked to identify designated people in the role of co-leader. Graph 1 shows the total number (319) of co-leaders in the NLC programme and their place of origin (e.g. LEA based). Of the 253 school-based co-leaders, significantly, 171 are headteachers:

Graph 1

The use of the term ‘co-leader’ is deliberate by the programme developers and in keeping with the orientation of the programme towards shared and distributed leadership. The NLCs decide on the number of co-leaders for each network. Of the 137 networks co-leadership is represented as a combination of three or two co-leaders. Three networks have only one co-leader.

Understanding of co-leadership role

Co-leaders comment that they were unsure what the role entailed or how to go about developing the network. To guide the role of the co-leader, the programme produced an initial document (Temperly, 2002) and from subsequent NLG Facilitator enquiry (2003) and case study research (Anderson and Kubiak, 2003; NFER, 2003) produced a further iteration of the document illustrating the enablers and barriers in the practice of co-leadership within NLCs (Spender, 2003).

Consistent across all the development and research activity is the conceptualisation of co-leadership as a form of ‘joint activity’. Co-leaders divide tasks (often based on skill, knowledge and interest). They adopt some of the roles and functions of the Networked Learning Group’s external appointed Facilitators. Co-leaders identified four key aspects (and characteristics) of their activity:

• Providing intellectual leadership – for example in understanding processes of school-based capacity building or curriculum development (Supportive)

• Remaining sensitive to individual circumstances – to areas of active development or introspection and plateaux (Reflective/Engaged)

• Knowing when to ‘drive the network forward’ and when to ‘let go’ so that others can take the chance to lead (Active/passive)

• Maintaining a coherent picture of the NLC as a whole alongside an understanding of differences between schools and between individuals within them (Reflective/Detached)

Co-leaders are Facilitators focusing on building social, organisational and intellectual capital through collegial and collaborative working. They facilitate shared vision, commitment and participation within the network. They are also boundary creatures working multiple interfaces between network, schools and external agencies. This is a difficult place to work. Comparing her position as deputy headteacher with that as co-leader, Worrall (2003) explains the difficulty in her network role. As Deputy Head she led and managed, shaping initiatives by the way “I led and managed it”. However in networks, accountability of personnel was first to their individual school (and headteacher) and then to the network. Co-Leaders are facilitators, partly because networks can not be managed. In Worrall’s (2003) description. co-leadership appears non-hierarchical, persuasion is favoured over compulsion and collective testing of ideas preferred to imposition. Thus, as Worrall (2003) explains, her leadership is facilitative in that it revolves around stimulating discussion, raising issues and suggesting strategies while the actual implementation of initiatives are in the hands of teachers in each school.

Co-leadership an evolving role

The co-leaders or a small group of people (e.g. co-leaders with a critical friend) usually wrote the submission to become a NLC. Co-leaders appear central to network development in the first hundred days. Indeed, their centrality is reinforced by Jackson et al (2003) who suggest that NLCs need a co-leader with the personal or school capacity to shoulder the workload needed to move the network forward. To some extent, their centrality often emerges out of the co-leader’s role in previous cross school projects (e.g. as Director of the EAZ), their close personal relationships with network members or possession of a personal passion, credibility or expertise that makes them highly influential. As people with the energy, knowledge, capacity and vision to drive the network forward they are often described by network members as the main asset of the NLC in the early days.

However, as central figures, co-leaders can be a point of vulnerability in the network. Their status, influence and network of personal relationships may block the participation of others on the network steering group. They may also be extremely overworked and begin to serve as a bottleneck in the network for information and leadership. Democratic processes such as rotating co-leadership every six months have proven unrealistic for some networks in their first hundred days who find that the complexity of the role means this would not be helpful to the network.