SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 1
Theory of Action for the Work of the School Reform Initiative
In the fall of 2014 the Board of the School Reform Initiative (SRI) began a conversation around a
simple question: What is the connection between SRI’s “works” (the things that the organization does)
and its mission? There are many components of SRI’s work. The organization and its affiliates provide
facilitative leadership institutes, leadership coaching, seminars preparing coaches to use the tools of
critical friendship, and literacy-focused PLCs. SRI principles and practices are used in teacher and
leadership preparation, induction and mentoring programs, content- and grade-level team initiatives, and
in a variety of other instances where adults are working collaboratively for the benefit of their students.
SRI also supports in-depth equity work, school redesign projects, teacher leadership initiatives, and action
research efforts. The facets of SRI’s work are long and varied. Yet how does all of this good work
connect to SRI’s mission?
SRI’s mission statement reads: SRI creates transformational learning communities fiercely
committed to educational equity and excellence. On the face of it, creating “transformational learning
communities fiercely committed to educational equity and excellence” seems like a good thing. However,
this mission statement begs two important questions: 1) What exactly does SRI “create”? and 2) How
does it create it? The answers to these questions are often called a “theory of action.”
The concept of “theory of action” comes from the organizational theory work of Donald Schon
and Chris Argyris (1994). Simply put, a theory of action articulates what an organization does and how it
does it. Richard Elmore (2004) says a theory of action connects “big ideas” to the “fine grain of practice.”
Sounds simple.
However, there are all sorts of theories of action. Schon and Argyris make an important
distinction between “espoused theories” and “theories in use” (Argyris, 1999). Espoused theories are what
we say we do. Mission statements are espoused theories. Many schools have mission statements that
describe how all their students will learn at high levels. Yet schools with such espoused theories are often
set up in such a way so that all students are not exposed to high-quality curriculum or expert instruction.
Their “theory in use” is quite different from their “espoused theory.” Most mission statements for
example are broad and ambiguous enough to leave room for different and often competing theories in use.
They can also provide cover for the “theory in use.” Joe McDonald reminds us, “We like to say that
theories of action lay out what reformers mean to do and how. The more explicitly they do this, we think,
the more power they gain” (McDonald, 2014, p. 22).
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 2
Articulating a clear theory of action is important for SRI as an organization, not because there is
intrinsic value in creating a theory, but because doing so opens the door to examining and hopefully
narrowing the gap between our espoused theories and theories in use. The clearer our theory of action, the
more likely that it will be a useful tool for organizational learning and improvement. Moreover, a clearly
articulated theory of action is useful in the development of services and products for our clients and
supports for members of our community. The SRI mission statement of “educational equity and
excellence” is our espoused theory. The organizational challenge is to determine how closely it is aligned
with the SRI “theory in use.” This draft theory of action is a synthesis of the SRI Board thinking from its
monthly meetings and retreats, the SRI Guiding Principles, the General Theory of Critical Friendship
document published on SRI’s research webpage, and feedback from affiliates who attended the 2015
Winter Meeting in Tucson and the Spring 2015 Experienced Facilitators Meeting.
This draft is based on four foundational concepts supported broadly in the research literature: (1)
the connection between adult collaboration and student learning, (2) school change theory, (3)
transformational learning theory and (4) adult development theory (Constructive Developmental Theory).
Each of these ideas requires a short summary that highlights their role in articulating the SRI theory of
action.
Foundational Concept 1: Connecting Adult Collaboration and Student Learning
Abundant research suggests that schools in which adults learn together in thoughtful, sustained,
and persistent ways can improve teacher practice and student learning (Bryk, 2010; Carroll, Fulton, &
Doerr, 2010; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; F. Newmann & Whelage, 1995;
F. M. Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001; Sebring et al., 2006). However, it is not at all clear
how adults in schools learn to work and learn together, to be reflective, to share their practice, to focus on
student learning, to give and receive useful feedback, or to build shared understandings of fundamental
ideas about schooling. This type of adult collaboration is complex and difficult to achieve.
Andy Hargreaves (and many others following the seminal work of Dan Lortie) points out that the
forces of presentism, isolation, and conservatism (Lortie, 1970) that characterize many schools are
significant barriers to the kind of adult learning⎯transformational or otherwise⎯that could make a
difference for students (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). Simply put, many schools are organized in ways
that do not support adult learning, and even actively discourage it (Bryk, 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert,
2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
On the other hand, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that schools that were able to work
collaboratively, deprivatize their work, focus on teaching and learning, reflect on practice, and maintain
shared norms and values improved teacher practice and student learning. The difference between the
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 3
schools Lortie describes and the ones Newmann describes is that in the second group of schools, adults
are learning collaboratively and openly about shared questions of practice (Bryk, 2010).
Figure 1 suggests that schools can be placed along a continuum that represents the degree to
which adults collaborate with each other, share practice, reflect on practice, and focus on teaching and
learning. These characteristics correlate with increased student learning.
Figure 1
Schools can be found all along this learning continuum. Some schools are very much as Lortie described
in 1970, while others collaborate, share practices, and focus on teaching and learning as Newmann
describes. Most are somewhere in the middle.
As schools move along this learning continuum – to become places that are more reflective,
collaborative, and focused on teaching and learning – not only does the culture of the school change, but
the capacity for improving teacher practice and increasing student learning also increases.
Figure 2
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 4
However, important research about the school reform efforts of the last twenty years tells us that
simply improving teacher classroom practice typically does not result in the fundamental changes needed
for schools to address issues connected to race, equity, the purpose of schools, or foundational
assumptions about teaching and learning (McDonald, 2014). Teachers may learn new literacy strategies –
which is a good thing – but such learning may not resolve or even name the deeper tensions upon which
many of our schools are built.
Foundational Concept 2: School Change Theory
In general, the literature on school change makes an important distinction between the
improvement and the reinvention of schools. The essential point is that improving schools and reinventing
schools are two very different tasks that make very different learning demands on the adults who are
asked to carry them out.
School improvement can be accomplished, for example, by adopting a new curriculum, finding a
new approach to teaching reading, or implementing extended learning time. School improvement often
leans toward what various theorists call “technical” (Heifetz, 1994), “Discourse I” (Eubanks, Parish, &
Smith, 1994), or “first order” (Cuban & Usdan, 2002) approaches. The list of improvements schools
regularly adopt is long and varied: teaching phonemic awareness, writing across the curriculum, wearing
uniforms, single sex classrooms, and expanded AP programs are just a few examples. Most of these
improvements are research-based, and all can help make schools better places for kids. Each one has their
advocates. However, each of these changes could be considered “technical” or “first order” because they
do not necessarily require fundamental shifts in the way adults in schools think about and enact their
work.
School reinvention is different. The reinvention of schools might be considered “adaptive”
(Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009), “Discourse II” (Eubanks et al., 1994), or “second order” (Cuban &
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 5
Usdan, 2002) work. School reinvention asks educators to not only adopt a new program or approach, but
also to rethink what it means to be a teacher and to challenge closely held assumptions about schools, our
practice and our students. School reinvention requires us to rethink fundamental aspects of schooling such
as who students are, how students are grouped for instruction, how we choose to use time, or what it
means to be an educator committed to equitable teaching practice.
School reinvention necessarily builds on school improvement. While the work of both school
improvement and school reinvention require adult learning, it is important to understand that school
reinvention requires adults to understand their learning experiences in different and more complicated
ways than does school improvement.
Thinking about the more challenging learning demands that school reinvention exacts from adults
in schools brings us to our third concept: Transformational Learning Theory.
Foundational Concept 3: Transformational Learning Theory
Ideally, school improvement and reinvention are driven not by what and how the adults in a
school learn but by what students need. However, educators are likely to conceptualize “what students
need” very differently from one another. Naturally, the more capacity educators have for complex
learning, the more capacity the school has for change, improvement, and reinvention (Argyris, 1999;
Senge, 2006). However, if adults in a school (including those in positions of formal authority) have little
capacity for complex, challenging learning, then it seems unlikely they will be able to immediately
engage in the transformative learning needed to reinvent the school. In order to reinvent schools, most
adults need to learn to construct meaning in unfamiliar, more complicated and challenging ways. The
literature on adult learning calls this learning how to learn in more complicated ways and taking action
based on this more complicated way of learning “transformative learning” (Mezirow, 2000).
Transformative (or transformational) learning is the learning that challenges adults in schools to adopt
different and more complicated ways of making meaning and use that learning to adopt a more
innovative, more authentic, more useful course of action. It is also at the heart of the “work” of the School
Reform Initiative.
Transformational learning theory makes a critical distinction between informational and
transformational learning. Informational learning is the learning that increases what we know, but not who
we are or how we understand our world.
Changes in one’s fund of knowledge, one’s confidence as a learner, one’s self perception as a learner, one’s motives in learning, one’s self esteem⎯these are all potentially important kinds of changes, all desirable, all worthy of teachers thinking about how to facilitate them. But it is possible for any or all of these changes to take
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 6
place without any transformation because they could all occur within the existing form or frame of reference. (Mezirow, 2000, p. 51)
Transformational learning is different. It is learning that changes not only what we know,
but also how we know what we know, and even who we are and how we respond to the world.
Mezirow (2000) explains,
Transformative learning refers to the process by which we transform our taken-for-granted references (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open emotionally, capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action. Transformative learning involves participation in constructive discourse to use the experiences of others to assess reasons justifying these assumptions, and taking an action decision based on the resulting insight. (p. 7)
Informational and transformational learning can be seen as ends of a learning continuum, and all
learning experiences can be found somewhere along this continuum. Many informational learning
experiences in schools are valuable, and while they might improve our practice, they do not surface
or question the hidden assumptions underneath that practice. It is only when a learning experience is
pulled towards the transformational end of the continuum, does the possibility of surfacing, facing,
questioning, and challenging fundamental, taken-for-granted assumptions arises. Figure 5
summarizes the informational/transformational-learning continuum.
Figure 5
The distinction between informational learning and transformational learning is critical for the
SRI theory of action. As research suggests, schools that can become more reflective, collaborative places
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 7
are able to improve teaching practice and thereby increase student learning. This is very much at the heart
of school improvement. These schools could be called informational learning communities. Becoming
such a community is very difficult because it often requires a change in the culture of a school. However,
informational learning does not lead to the reinvention of schools, to the tackling of difficult questions
about race or equity, to questioning fundamental assumptions about teaching, learning, and students. Only
transformational learning communities have the capacity for this more foundational and challenging work
Transformational learning theory suggests that the engine that propels transformational (as
opposed to informational) learning is reflective discourse. “Reflective discourse involves a critical
assessment of assumptions. It leads towards clearer understanding by tapping collective experience to
arrive at a tentative best judgment” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 11). Reflective discourse is the engine that drives
the transformational learning that moves adults to more complicated ways of knowing and equips them
for the adaptive work needed to reinvent schools.
Reflective discourse that leads to transformational learning is a complicated learning event that,
like most SRI work, is typically enacted over a significant period of time in very complex contexts.
Mezirow states: Feelings of trust, solidarity, security and empathy are essential preconditions for full participation in discourse. Discourse is not based on winning arguments; it centrally involves finding agreement, welcoming difference, “trying on” other points of view, identifying the common in the contradictory, tolerating the anxiety implicitly in paradox, searching for synthesis, and reframing. (Mezirow, 2000, p. 12)
Transformational learning theory also holds that the goal of any transformational learning is to
“guide more useful, more justified action.” “Transformative learning involves participation in
constructive discourse to use the experience of others to assess reasons, justifying these assumptions, and
making an action based on the resulting insight ” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 8). Transformational learning not
only demands questioning assumptions, managing anxiety, and challenging comfortable habits of mind, it
also demands action – changes in practice based on new, more useful ways of thinking. SRI’s work can
be thought of as helping adults to create structures and contexts that serve as “holding environments”
(Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 155); these environments supports reflective discourse and hold its members
mutually accountable to put the learning from that discourse into practice.
Figure 6 suggests that the engine that moves adults from one stage of adult development to
another (informational to socializing to self-authoring to self-transformative) is reflective discourse. It
also suggests that groups can act as a transformational learning community at some times and as an
informational learning community at other times. However, a group that has always acted in
informational ways will struggle with transformational learning, something they have never experienced
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 8
or imagined, while an experienced transformational learning community can more easily act in
informational ways if the task demands it.
Figure 6
REFLECTIVEDISCOURSE
INFORMATIONALLEARNING
TRANSFORMATIONALLEARNING
1. Increase fundof knowledge
2. Buildconfidence as a
learner3. Deepen skills
No change inframe of
reference, howmeaning is made
or who we are
1. Transform our taken-for-granted references(meaningperspectives, habits of mind,
mind-sets);2. Transforms how we know the
world;3. Transforms who we are.
Foundational Concept 4: Adult Development Theory
If school improvement and school reinvention make different learning demands on adults in
schools, then any SRI theory of action needs to take into account the different ways that adults in schools
understand these different demands. Constructive Developmental Theory (Kegan, 1998) – which explains
how adults intellectually grow and develop over time – can help us do this. The fundamental tenets of
Constructive Developmental Theory are:
(1) Adults continually work to make sense of their experiences (constructive).
(2) The ways that adults make sense of their world can change and grow more complex over time
(developmental).
(3) Four of the most common ways adults understand their worlds can be described as
instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, and self transformational.
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 9
Each stage of adult development can be seen as a “frame” or “mind set” or even a “container” made up of
our assumptions about how the world works. Figure 3 shows a container built with the assumptions of an
instrumental knower.
Figure 3
Instrumental knowers (and all knowers for that matter) can take in large amounts of informational
learning – learning that fills them up with new content, new strategies and new knowledge. Figure 4
suggest that informational learning fills up the container of assumptions that hold adult learners.
Figure 4
The container of assumptions holds informational learning; however the informational learning does not
change the container itself. In schools, a teacher can develop a tremendous knowledge of children’s
literature by reading hundreds of chapter books, yet never re-think their assumptions about how children
learn to read. The learning that challenges those assumptions and changes the container itself is
transformational learning. A more complicated and robust container of assumptions is the container of
socializing knowers described in figure 5.
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 10
Transformational learning is the engine that changes containers assumptions and creates room for more
complex, messy ways of understanding the world; Figure 6 describes the relationship between
instrumental and socializing knowers. Figure 6.
The container of assumptions of the socializing knower provides room for
more complicated ways of constructing learning that no longer rely solely
on the instrumental knower’s concrete processes and specific answers but
also takes into account the perspectives of others. However, a socializing
knower always has the capacity to act as an instrumental knower when the
context requires it.
As adults continue to develop and increase their capacity for holding
increasingly complex ideas, their containers of assumptions continue to change as well. Constructive
development theory calls the next two stage of adult development “self-authoring” and “self-
transformative (Kegan, 1998).” Figure 7 describers the container of assumption of self authoring and self-
transformative knowers.
Figure 7.
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 11
In every school, there are likely to be instrumental, socializing, self-authoring and self-transformative
knowers who experience learning opportunities in different ways. An instrumental knower might
experience an opportunity to complete a collaborative inquiry project with other teachers as a waste of
time until she figures out how to get her classroom organized or learns the school’s new math program. A
socializing knower who thrives on teamwork might be uncomfortable when that teamwork starts to
uncover issues of race and class that require her to take a stand independent of her grade-level team or
department. The self-authoring knower might find a PowerPoint presentation on bullying too prescriptive
and consider it a mechanism to avoid difficult questions.
Self-transformative knowers are persistently suspicious of the “wholeness, distinctness, completeness
or priority” (p. 321) of their own assumptions and ways of looking at the world. For example, Kegan
describes the self-transformative view of conflict like this:
The protracted nature of our conflict suggests not just that the other side will not go away, but that it probably should not. The conflict is a likely consequence of one or both of us making prior, true, distinct and whole, our partial position. The conflict is potentially a reminder of our tendency to pretend completeness when we are in fact incomplete. We may have this conflict because we need it to recover our true complexity. (Kegan, 1998, p. 319)
Instrumental knowers avoid conflict. Socializing knowers accept conflict, but not with their own
group. Self-authoring knowers are comfortable with conflict and with their own assumptions. Self-
transformative knowers embrace conflict because it opens the door to increasingly authentic, useful, and
more complex versions of themselves. Each stage of adult development represents a more complicated
way of understanding the world and one’s place in it (Kegan, 1998). Adult development also builds
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 12
organizational capacity for school improvement and reinvention, although school reinvention requires
more organizational capacity than school improvement. Figure 8 sums up the relationship between the
different stages of adult development.
Figure 8
Constructive Developmental Theory acknowledges that adults can adopt different learning
stances in different situations. A self-authoring knower may find the PowerPoint on bullying too
prescriptive and a mechanism to avoid difficult questions, but the self-authoring knower can certainly act
as an instrumental knower for a while and absorb the content of the presentation if necessary. On the
other hand, even when the situation requires it, an instrumental knower will struggle with a collaborative
inquiry project that requires socializing or self-authoring learning; they might not know how to operate in
the complicated way the project demands. As with all developmental learning, it is much easier for a
learner’s behavior to reflect the characteristics of a stage that they have previously experienced rather
than the characteristics of a stage they cannot imagine. A self-authoring or self-transformative knower can
strategically act in instrumental ways because they have already experienced that stage themselves. It is
difficult for the instrumental knower to act in self-authoring ways, a stage they cannot yet envision.
Moreover, Constructive Developmental Theory does not argue that one way of knowing is
fundamentally better than another, although at first glance the language may seem quite hierarchical.
Adults continue to grow and develop much as our students do. For example, learning to read is a
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 13
developmental process, and two readers can be at very different developmental places. Adults can be at
different developmental stages as well.
Constructive Developmental Theory suggests that individuals at different stages of adult
development might experience anxiety or satisfaction depending on the match between the personal and
professional tasks at hand and the degree to which an individual is able to learn/act effectively in
response.
In schools, a teacher who is an instrumental knower looking for concrete answers and for specific
processes to get them right, might be able to think, for example, about issues of equitable educational
practice. The instrumental knower wants to know the right way to line kids up for recess without
disturbing other classes, and how to correctly prepare students for the state assessment, effectively manage
the school’s new reading program, and efficiently address the achievement gap. They do not (yet) think in
more complicated ways about the purpose of schooling, or issues of race and equity, which are almost
always convoluted and paradoxical.
Draft Theory of Action: What does SRI create?
The first question the theory answers is “What does SRI create?” The answer “transformational
learning communities fiercely committed to educational excellence and equity,” has four broad
implications that emerge from considering the four foundational concepts discussed above.
The first is that this is a particularly challenging mission that demands much of the organization
and its members. Transformational learning communities ask their members to: (1) become mutually
accountable to each other and for the success of all students they serve, (2) engage in public assessment of
adult and student work, (3) work in ways that challenge each other’s assumptions, and (4) question how
fundamental beliefs are enacted in practice (SRI Guiding Principles). Each and every one of these
principles challenges how most educators function in most schools. The challenge of a transformational
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 14
learning community is that it asks educators to intentionally and persistently go against the grain” of
“isolationism, presentism and conservatism” (Hargreaves & Shirley) that characterize many schools.
The second implication is that building informational learning communities is also an important
part of SRI work. Informational learning communities are a necessary developmental precursor to
transformational learning communities. SRI builds informational learning communities, not as an end in
itself, but as an essential step in building transformational learning communities.
The third implication is that the ultimate goal of SRI work – of creating transformational learning
communities – has to be the reinvention, not just improvement, of schools. There is no denying that
building the capacity for school improvement is a necessary step in the work of building the capacity for
school reinvention. Organizational learning, like all learning processes, is developmental. However, a
transformational learning community engages in informational learning as a necessary (technical, first
order, Discourse I) step in the larger (adaptive, second order, Discourse II) work of reinventing schools as
places that “ensure equal access to quality learning in a way that achieves equitable outcomes for each
student” (SRI Guiding Principles). Informational learning communities can lead to the improvement of
schools, but only transformational learning communities lead to the reinvention of schools.
The fourth implication is that the reinvention of schools into educationally excellent and equitable
institutions not only requires adult learning, it also requires adult development. For schools to reinvent
themselves as more equitable, fundamentally different places, adults in schools need to: 1) develop the
capacity for staying in difficult conversations, 2) manage their own and others’ learning anxiety, 3)
become suspicious of their own assumptions, 4) embrace conflict, and 5) understand that all of their most
closely held beliefs are necessarily incomplete. The reinvention of schools requires more self-authoring
and self-transformative knowers. The deepest work will be lead by self-transformative knowers (Heifetz
et al., 2009). Adult learning happens in informational learning communities, whereas adult development
happens in transformational learning communities.
SRI is an organization that builds transformational learning communities because only
transformational learning communities support the kind of adult development needed to reinvent schools
as more equitable and deeply excellent institutions.
Draft Theory of Action: How does SRI create transformational learning communities?
The notion that informational learning communities are an essential precursor to transformational
learning communities suggests that the answer to how SRI creates such communities may also be
developmental. In its work together, the SRI Board has articulated some of the ways that SRI connects its
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 15
work to its mission. As with all developmental work, SRI’s many initiatives change and grow over time
as SRI works in partnership with schools and districts. In the discussion below, this draft theory of action
is conceptualized as a series of continua. These continua suggest that SRI work may look very different
depending on where on each continuum the work is situated. SRI work will look very different in groups
that are struggling to become informational learning communities, as compared to those that are well on
their way to becoming transformational learning communities. Each of the continua below can be seen as
one element of the answer to the question of “How does SRI create transformational learning
communities that are fiercely committed to educational equity and excellence?”
The School Reform Initiative carries out its mission by…
1. Working over time in order to (1) build relationships based on a commitment to the principles of
critical friendship and (2) better understand the context in which transformational learning takes place. SRI
often begins its work by introducing or refining a specific service or product, and SRI needs to continue
to develop products and services as it builds financial stability and creates a robust marketing strategy.
However, SRI understands that the best work is done over time as it builds context-specific relationships,
based on the principles of “critical friendship.” Transformational learning does not happen quickly
because it is very much dependent on educators ability to build a school culture that is characterized by
critical friendship, that is, by the ability to be reflective, give and receive useful feedback, focus
persistently on teaching and learning, and commit to surfacing, examining and reframing closely held
assumptions. Working over time and building relationships allows SRI to understand the context of its
work, use that understanding to inform its work, co-create new learning with its partners and take more
effective, more justified action. Figure 9 summarizes this idea.
Figure 9
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
Specific Products/Services for
specific timeframe
Long term relationshipsbased on a deep
understanding of contextthat supports the co-
creation of knowledge andinforms every aspect of the
work.
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 16
2. Using structured conversations. SRI uses a variety of protocols designed to help adults in schools
collaborate, deprivatize their practice, give each other useful feedback, focus on teaching and learning,
and build shared norms and values. In informational learning communities these protocols can be seen as
“recipes,” and the emphasis is on “getting it right.” As groups move towards transformational learning
communities, SRI helps them understand the deep structures upon which protocols are built. They are no
longer recipes, but purposeful tools used in service of a group’s learning goals. This idea is summarized
in Figure 10.
Figure 10
Protocols arerecipes to be
done"correctly."
There is a sharedunderstanding of the
deep structuresand purposes uponwhich protocols are
created.
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
3. Modeling skilled facilitation and coaching. SRI models and provides the skilled facilitation
needed to support adult learning and development, and organizational growth. In informational learning
communities, an SRI facilitator may facilitate a group’s work. However, as a group moves toward
becoming a more transformational learning community, SRI works to help everyone in the community
become a skilled facilitator. Facilitation expertise is deeply understood and shared. SRI also
acknowledges that in building transformational learning communities, there is often a need for a coach
who does not necessarily facilitate, but rather holds and asks the difficult questions, names the tensions in
the group’s work, and attends to the larger goals of equity, excellence, and school reinvention. SRI
models and provides support for the development of group coaching. Figure 11 summarizes this idea.
Figure 11
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 17
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
Skilledfacilitation
provided andmodeled by anSRI facilitator
Facilitation is deeplyunderstood and
shared within thegroup. Coaching and
facilitation aredifferent things.
4. Supporting both adult learning and adult development. As the discussion above suggests, SRI
understands that adult learning and adult development can be usefully seen as different concepts. In
effective informational learning communities, there is considerable adult learning. Educators learn new
strategies and techniques or refine what they already know. SRI supports adult learning. Adult
development takes place in transformational learning communities and is different from adult learning
because it calls into question what we know, and more importantly, how we know it. Transformational
learning communities promote adult development by helping educators “try on” increasingly complex and
uncomfortable ideas and ways of understanding the world in order to guide action. SRI supports adult
development. Figure 7 summarizes these ideas.
Figure 7
Adult learningthat builds upon,
adds to orimproves what we
already know.
Adult Developmentthat helps us learn in
more complicatedways, and changeshow we understandthe world, and even
who we are.
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
5. Focusing on school improvement and school reinvention. Supporting school improvement and
school reinvention. In informational learning groups, SRI maintains a persistent focus on improving
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 18
instructional practice to support school improvement. However, SRI also understands that schools only
reinvent themselves into equitable and educationally excellent places when there is a persistent and clear
focus on that goal. SRI helps provide that focus. Figure 8 summarizes this idea.
Figure 8
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
Focus onimproving
Instructionalpractice
Clear, persistentfocus on
educationalexcellence, equity
and schoolreinvention
6. Engaging formal and informal leadership. SRI works closely with district- and school-based
leaders to build both informational and transformational learning communities. SRI understands that the
more involved formal leadership is in the work of adult development, the more likely that work is to
succeed. However, SRI also understands that supporting transformational learning is a risky enterprise for
school leaders. SRI works with leaders to support and sustain their focus as they find the courage to take
the risks that transformational learning requires. Figure 12 summarizes this idea.
Figure 12
Leadershipunderstands the
work in anauthentic way.
Leadershipunderstands andaccepts the risks
required fortransformational
learning.
InformationalLearning
Communities
TransformationalLearning
Communities
Schools characterized by
IsolationismPresentism
Conservatism
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 19
So what? Now what? Intentional Learning Communities
So what? The word “DRAFT” is written on every page of this document. The most effective
theories of action, more so than mission statements, visions, guiding principles or values statements are
always drafts. Theories of action are meant to be tested, examined, added to and subtracted from. They
challenge an organization to surface and test fundamental taken-for-granted assumptions and model the
transformational learning that SRI hopes to support in schools. For SRI, this draft theory of action should
be the starting place for reflective discourse that builds the organization’s capacity for complex, anxiety
producing thinking and reflective dialogue that builds schools that are “fiercely committed to equity and
excellence.” It is the beginning of a conversation, not the end. And it is not an easy conversation.
Now What? The core concept in this draft theory of action is “continuum.” There are continua of
adult development, continua of organizational capacity, continua of school change and continua of SRI
organizational practice. Continua are everywhere in the draft. The concept has two broad implications for
next steps for SRI and its facilitators.
The first implication is that in this theory of action built on continua, everything and everyone is
in flux, everything/everyone is moving, and there is little solid ground. In her seminal article, “Learning
to Love the Swamp” Ellen Schall uses the metaphor of the “swamp” to describe a place full of
“important, complex and messy problems that resist technical analysis (p. 203).” To survive and thrive in
this swamp, an organization (and its affiliates) needs to resist the urge to retreat to the “high, hard ground
where the problems are also real but also less important to both individuals and the wider society (Schall,
1995, p.203).” The important problems that SRI has taken up – equity, school reinvention,
transformational learning – reside in the swamp. An organization needs to learn to not only become
comfortable with the swamp, and the anxiety it produces, but also to learn to hold on to the feelings and
ideas that are most challenging, to resist easy answers and even to “love the swamp.” Learning to love
the swamp of being “fiercely committed to educational equity and excellence” will and should be a
continuing organizational challenge for SRI.
The second implication is also connected to the notion of continua. All of the continua in this
theory of action are directional. They go somewhere. They move from school improvement to school
reinvention, they move to increasingly complex stages of adult development, they move from
informational towards transformational learning communities, and from using protocols as recipes to deep
understandings of underlying principles. However, none of this movement is easy. Schools do not
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 20
reinvent themselves as equitable places, build transformational learning communities or support complex
levels of adult development without significant intentionality. None of this work is easy. The implication
for all of SRI work is that it needs to be persistently intentional. SRI learning communities need to be
intentional, which means even when they are informational or use protocols as recipes or support adult
learning instead of development, that they are all moving intentionally towards transformational learning
and the reinvention of school. SRI’s learning communities need to be intentional, and persistently so.
The lesson of intentional learning communities is essential to SRI work and this draft theory of
action. It challenges SRI facilitators whether they are looking at student work, facilitating a tuning
protocol, helping teachers develop norms, or supporting the implementation a new reading program to
think about the ends of the continua: the reinvention of schools, transformational learning and adult
development, to be relentlessly intentional about the learning communities they help build in schools. SRI
and its facilitators need to learn to love the swamp.
Argyris,C.(1999).Onorganizationallearning.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Bryk,A.S.(2010).OrganizingSchoolsforImprovement.PhiDeltaKappan,91(7),23-30.Carroll,T.G.,Fulton,K.,&Doerr,H.(2010).TeamUpfor21stCenturyTeachingandLearning:
WhatResearchandPracticeRevealaboutProfessionalLearning.WashingtonDC:NationalCommissiononTeachingandAmerica'sFuture.
Cuban,L.,&Usdan,M.(2002).PowerfulReformswithShallowRoots:ImprovingAmerica'sUrbanSchools.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Eubanks,E.,Parish,R.,&Smith,D.(1994).ChangingtheDiscourseinSchools.InP.Hall(Ed.),Race,Ethnicity,andMulticulturalism:PolicyandPractice.(pp.35-35).Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouri.
Hargreaves,A.,&Shirley,D.(2009).ThePersistenceofPresentism.TeachersCollegeRecord,111(11),2505-2534.
Heifetz,R.(1994).LeadershipwithoutEasyAnswers.Heifetz,R.,Grashow,A.,&Linsky,M.(2009).Thepracticeofadaptiveleadership:Toolsand
tacticsforchangingyourorganizationandtheworld.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessPress.
Kegan,R.(1998).Inoverourheads:Thementaldemandsofmodernlife.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Kruse,S.,Louis,K.,&Bryk,A.(1994).Buildingprofessionallearningcommunitiesinschool.IssuesinRestructuringSchools,(ReportNo.6),3–6.RetrievedfromRetrievedfrom
SRI Theory of Action Feb 2016 21
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cors/issues_in_restructuringschools/issues_no_6_spring_1994.pdfwebsite:
McDonald,J.P.(2014).Americanschoolreform:Whatworks,whatfailsandwhy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
McLaughlin,M.,&Talbert,J.(2001).ProfessionalCommunitiesandtheWorkofHighSchoolTeaching.ChicagoIL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
McLaughlin,M.,&Talbert,J.(2003).ReformingDistricts:HowDistrictsSupportSchoolReform..SeattleWA:CenterfortheStudyofTeachingandPolicy.
Mezirow,J.(2000).LearningasTransformation:CriticalPerspectivesonaTheoryinProgress.TheJossey-BassHigherandAdultEducationSeries.
Newmann,F.,&Whelage,G.(1995).SuccessfulSchoolRestructuring.Madison:WisconsinCenterforEducationResearch,CenteronOrganizationandRestructuringofSchools.
Newmann,F.M.,Smith,B.,Allensworth,E.,&Bryk,A.S.(2001).SchoolInstructionalProgramCoherence:BenefitsandChallenges.ImprovingChicago'sSchools.ChicagoIL:ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch.
Sebring,P.B.,Allensworth,E.,Bryk,A.S.,Easton,J.Q.,Luppescu,S.,&ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch,I.L.(2006).TheEssentialSupportsforSchoolImprovement.ResearchReport:ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch.
Senge,P.(2006).Thefifthdiscipline:Theartandpracticeofthelearningorganization.NewYork:RandomHouse.