Advertisement

Leading School-Based Networks and Collaborative Learning: Working Together for Better Outcomes?

  • Mark Hadfield
  • Christopher Chapman
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 25)

Abstract

School-to-school networks have become integral features of many education systems. Some networks have emerged organically as practitioners have sought to share and improve practice while others have been systematically planned and supported by policy makers in an attempt to raise the overall effectiveness of entire systems. However, despite their rising popularity the literature pertaining to their leadership remains limited. This chapter is based on the view that many school-to-school networks share common features and face similar issues, and therefore their leadership is presented with comparable sets of tasks and challenges. The chapter discusses these key leadership activities and concludes by setting out a framework for network leadership.

Keywords

Professional Development Collaborative Learning Professional Learning Collaborative Activity Individual School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, G., & Lamont, B. (2003). Knowledge management system and developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 142–154.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, M., Jopling, M., Cordingley, P., Firth, A., King, E., & Mitchell, H. (2006). What is the impact on pupils of networks that include at least three schools? What additional benefits are there for practitioners, organisations and the communities they serve? (Systematic review). Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Seashore, L. K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organisational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, R. (1982). Towards a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure, perception and action. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Center for Research on the Context of Teaching (CRC). (2002). Bay Area School Reform Collaborative: Phase one (1996–2001) [Principal Investigators: Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Joan E. Talbert, Stanford University].Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, C., & Fullan, M. (2007). Collaboration and partnership for equitable improvement: Towards a networked learning system. School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., Bragg, J., Hull, J., Mongon, D., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2008). Emerging patterns of school leadership: current trends and future directions. Nottingham: NCSL.Google Scholar
  9. Church, M., Bitel, M., Armstrong, K., Fernando, P., Gould, H., Joss, S., Marwaha-Diedrich, M., De La Torre, A.-L., & Vouhe, C. (2002). Participation, relationships and dynamic change: New thinking on evaluating the work of international networks. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deloitte and Touche. (2000) Evaluation of European school partnerships under Comenius Action 1 & Lingua Action E, July.Google Scholar
  12. Hadfield, M. (2007). Co-leaders and middle leaders: the dynamic between leaders and followers in networks of schools. School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadfield, M., & Jopling, M. (2006). The potential of collaboratives to support schools in complex and challenging circumstances. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
  14. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hopkins, D. (2000). Schooling for tomorrow: Innovation and networks. OECD/SERI Seminar, September 14–15, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leiberman, A., & Wood, D. (2004). Untangling the threads: networks, community and teacher learning in the national writing projects. In H. Maccarthy, P. Millar, & P. Skidmore (Eds.), Network logic: Who governs in an interconnected world? (p. 705). London: Demos.Google Scholar
  19. Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 9(8), 7–45.Google Scholar
  20. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in an era of reform. New York: National Center For Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching.Google Scholar
  21. Mandell, M. (1999). The impact of collaborative efforts: changing the face of public policy through networks and network structure, Policy Studies Review Spring, 16, 14–17.Google Scholar
  22. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building School-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD. (2003). Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems. In Schooling for tomorrow. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. OfSTED. (2003). Excellence in cities and EAZs, Management and impact. London: OfSTED.Google Scholar
  26. Reyes, P., & Phillips, J. (2002). Annenberg evaluation report: Lessons learned on urban school reform. In Houston Annenberg challenge research and evaluation study. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  27. Sammons, P., Mujtaba, T., Earl, L., & Qing, Gu. (2007). Participation in network learning community programmes and standards of pupil achievement: Does it make a difference? School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheppard, B., & Tuchinsky, M. (1996). Micro-ob and the network organisation. In Kramer, R., & Tyler T. (Eds.), Trist in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 140–165.Google Scholar
  29. Sliwka, A. (2003). Networking for educational innovation: A comparative analysis. In Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems (pp. 49–63). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Stoll, L., & Seashore Louis, K. (eds.) (2007). Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas OUP Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  33. Sullivan, H., & Skeltcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public sector services. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Toole, J., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  35. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, A. K. (2000). A different approach to systemic reform: network structures in Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 508–515.Google Scholar
  37. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy, 17(4), 399–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of WolverhamptonWalsallUK
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations