gerald fallon - impacts of sch org

8/8/2019 Gerald Fallon - Impacts of Sch Org

1/14

International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, October 5, 2009. Volume 4, Number 9 1

IMPACTS OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING INTO A COLLABORATIVE

SETTING ON THE NATURE OF EMERGING FORMS OF COLLEGIALITY

GERALD FALLONThe University of Saskatchewan

JOHN BARNETTThe University of Western Ontario

This case study tells the story of an elementary school staff on the west coast of Canada that decided to address theirperceived problem of teacher isolation by transforming the internal organization of their school into a collaborative envi-

ronment designed to foster collegial practices among themselves. The main guiding question of this study was: can acollaborative organizational structure facilitate and sustain a level of collegiality in which people feel safe from attack,where difficult questions are addressed, and where the status quo can be safely challenged? In this study, the transfor-mation of organizational structure of the school elicited and molded, to an extent, the professional behaviours of mem-

bers of the staff into professional collegial patterns of interactions. However, we have found that educators seemed tohave made individual choices to maintain a certain degree of isolation, of privacy, shielding themselves from reflectiveinquiry and criticism.

Fallon, G., Barnett, J. (2009). Impacts of School Organizational Restructuring Into a Collaborative Setting onthe Nature of Emerging Forms of Collegiality. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 4(9).Retrieved [DATE] from http://www.ijepl.org.

Introduction

A significant number of teachers spend nearly all theirtime with students or alone planning and gradingpapers, it is not surprising to hear them say that they feelisolated from their colleagues (Lortie, 1975; Rosenholtz,1989). According to some scholars (Deaudelin, Dussault,& Thibodeau, 2003; Flinder, 1988; Smith & Scott,1990), the perception that teaching is an isolated andself-reliant profession is partly the result of the nature ofthe schools internal organizational structure. As a result,more and more schools are trying to break this percep-tion of professional isolation among teachers by creatingand implementing organizational structures designed tofoster collegiality (Fullan, 1991; Hoy & Sweetland,2001; Johnson, 1998).

This article tells the story of the staff of an elemen-tary school on the west coast of Canada that addressedtheir perceived problem of teacher isolation by attempt-ing to transform the schools internal organization into amore collaborative environment designed to foster colle-gial practices. The main guiding question of our studywas this: Can a collaborative organizational structurefacilitate and sustain a level of collegiality in which peo-

ple feel safe from attack, supported, and emotionallysecure, and in which difficult questions are addressed,risk taking is valued, and the status quo can be safelychallenged? There have been few reports of schools inwhich staff members have deliberately chosen to trans-form the organizational structure of their school by fos-tering collegial interactions as means of minimizing per-


2/14


3/14

Gerald Fallon and John Barnett

edge, skills, and competencies) in coping with challenges(such as professional isolation); and plan and implementchanges (Brint, 2001). We do not suggest that the con-cept of collaborative organizational school structureshould be treated as an idealized fantasy of common-being, nor a unity of experience or perspective (Welch

& Panelli, 2007, p. 350), nor as a relatively homogenoussocial category requiring sameness. Instead, we concep-tualize a collaborative organizational school structure asa continually shifting, imprecise, porous, and malleablelandscape of connection originating from one discourseor another about motives for collaborative interactionwithin an organizational structure (Brint, 2001; Irwin &Farr, 2004; Lavi, 2006; McMillan, 1996; Welch &Panelli, 2007).

These motives embedded in specific discourses deal-ing with teacher collaboration are centrally important inour understanding and con-ceptualization of collabora-tive organizational schoolstructures. The primary moti-vators of particular interac-tions and connections amongmembers of a school influ-ence its collective organiza-tional form (Zellermayer &Margolin, 2005). Lavi(2006) differentiates amongfive complementary discours-

es that provide an under-standing of the multisidedphenomenon of collaborativeorganizational school struc-ture in terms of its focus ofattention (strategic purposes),the meaning it attaches toteacher collaboration, its pur-pose, and its value orientation(see Table 1).This perspective casts collab-orative organizational school

structure as a complex, itera-tive, nonlinear process inwhich a group of educatorsstructurally organize them-selves following their drivingforces (primary motivatorsexpressed in specific kind ofdiscourses, as shown in Table1)permitting, enabling,

precipitating events, processes, and conditions thatshake the community and place it at the edge of organi-zational restructuring (Levy & Merry, 1986). Such spe-cific discourses create defining moments (Grimmett,2000) for potential redesign of a school organizationalstructure (Zellermayer, 2001) and situations in which

individuals can no longer interact or participate in waysthey once did (Matuzov & Hayes, 2002).

We view this question of driving forces or discours-es as critical in explaining human engagement in design-ing a specific collaborative organizational school struc-ture that is relevant to its participants. The nature ofthese driving forces or discourses affects the characteris-tics of a collaborative organizational school structure, itsinternal functioning, and the types of emerging collegialinteractions (Lavi, 2006; Zellermayer & Margolin,2005). As highlighted by some authors (Graham, 2001;

3


4/14


5/14


room settings where educators might be involved in jointteaching, mutual observation of one anothers work, orcritical analysis of one anothers practices. Tougher ques-tions about ones practices and their underlying values orassumptions and how to improve them are kept off theagenda. This type of collegiality does not embrace theprinciple of systematic, reflective practice because it lim-its reflective approaches to procedural questions andignores the propositional questions that could challengethe taken-for-granted ends toward which teaching is

directed. These kinds of collegial practices emphasizereassurance and sympathy while discouraging closescrutiny and criticism. As Little (1990) points out, suchnorms may provide teachers with collective permissionfor poor performance and marginal commitment (p.524). These superficial, weak, and comfortable kinds ofcollegiality lead to few, if any, significant improvementsin instructional practices in the classroom (Fullan, 1991)and have little impact on the school culture in terms ofcontinuous renewal (Fullan, 1991; Little, 1990;Sergiovanni, 1990). They lead to changes that improvethe efficiency and effectiveness of what is currently done,

without disturbing basic organizational features. Thisweak collegiality, although comfortable, places too muchemphasis on sharing and celebrating experience and notenough on inquiring into principles, assumptions, andpractices of teaching.

Joint workthe strongest form of collegial practice(e.g., team teaching, planning, inquiry, observation,action research, peer coaching, and mentoring) impliescollective action, stronger interdependence, shared

responsibility, and a greaterreadiness to participate in reflec-tive inquiry (examining prac-tices critically, seeking betteralternatives, and assessing theworth of alternatives). This is a

mode of coparticipation thatentails reflective inquiry, criti-cism, and learning as integralconstituents, as opposed to thesimple acquisition and accept-ance of ideas, ready-made mate-rials, and tricks without inquiryor criticism. Failure and uncer-tainty are not hidden or defend-ed; rather, they are shared anddiscussed. This kind of strongcollegiality is most likely to leadto significant improvement andchange (Barth, 1990; Fullan,

1993; Little, 1990). All in all, scholars (Fullan, 1991;Little, 1982, 1990) recognize the merit of a reflectivestance toward teaching if it is construed in a way thatpermits and requires broader questions to be askedabout what is worthwhile in teaching and why it isimportant. Figure 2 presents our representation of thelevels of collegial practices that might emerge within acollaborative organizational school structure.

Figure 3 presents the overall conceptual framework

we used to develop an understanding of how research

5


6/14

Impacts of School Organizational Restructuring into a Collaborative Setting on the Nature of Emerging Forms of Collegiality

participants in the school we studied intentionallyredesigned their organizational school structure, and thekind of collegial practices they have engaged in as aresult of their restructured working environment. Our

conceptual framework illustrates that the concepts ofcollaborative organizational school structure and colle-gial practices are complementary, since they share basicpremises about professional activity, meanings, and the

development of professional organized settings over timewithin a school. Both focus on professional and organi-zational activities as the site where teaching and admin-istrative staff negotiate meaning and where a school

organization develops, reifies, and trans-forms common professional practices and

organizational structures. Our conceptualframework also promotes a view of orga-nizational structure and context thatintertwines physical surroundings, organ-ized spaces, professional relationships,and the meaning that teachers and schooladministrators attribute to the profession-al actions they perform within theirschool.

Methodology and Procedures

The main purpose of our study was todevelop an understanding of how and towhat extent intentionally restructuring aschools organization in response to teach-ers sense of professional isolation cansupport the emergence of collegial inter-actions. The study embodied the charac-teristics of exploratory, explanatory, anddescriptive case study research. Based onRobsons (1993) and Yins (1993) classifi-cations, the study was exploratorybecause it sought to:

Develop a comprehensive under-standing of the events leading up tothe redesign of the schools organiza-tional structure into a collaborativeone conducive to the emergence ofcollegial practices. Understand the ways that collabo-rative organizational school structurewas understood and put into actionby those who had firsthand experi-ence with its design and implementa-tion in their school.

Develop insight into the contextualinfluences that shaped the design andimplementation of the process.The study was explanatory because itsought to: Understand how the meanings

ascribed to the notion of collaborative schoolstructure by the research participants influencedthe participants engagement in terms of thetypes of collegial practices.

6


7/14


Learn what perceived level of collegial prac-tices was achieved and understand the reasonswhy collegial practices among research partici-pants looked the way they did.

The exploratory and explanatory nature of the study wascomplemented by a descriptive element that sought to:

Provide an accurate profile of events and sit-uations that occurred during the course ofschool organizational restructuring into a collab-orative one. Identify key core beliefs and ideas thatshaped the organizational school structure.Because this study aimed to understand the complex

nature of redesigning a schools organizational structureinto a collaborative one conducive to the emergence ofcollegial practices, our intention was to emphasize thepersonal perspectives of those experiencing the volun-tary design process. We also wanted to establish how theperceived impact of the organizational redesign affectedthe sustained collegial practices that emerged over theperiod of the study.

Given these goals and the context in which we wereworking, we used a case study approach (Mirriam, 1998; Yin, 2003) because it provided a methodology thatenabled us to conduct an in-depth, multifaceted inquiryof a single phenomenon using several procedures anddata sources (archival school data, internal policy schooldocuments, and semistructured interviews). Accordingto Yin (2003), case study methodology is most useful

when the phenomenon under study is not readily distin-guishable from its context.In our case, teachers interacting within structured

patterns of collegiality were social entities responsive andconnected to the larger organizational environment of aschool. Case study was also appropriate because theprocess occurred during a specific time frame that waseasily bounded. The process itself was important tostudy because teachers perceived isolation had neverbefore been linked to voluntary organizational restruc-turing. The developments undertaken by the staff at thisschool made a strategic case for our investigation into the

linkages between voluntary organizational restructuring,emergent collegial practices, and teachers perceived iso-lation.

Data Collection and Analysis At the time of the study, 21 full-time teachers wereemployed; of these, 18 (including the school administra-tor) agreed to participate in the study. Female staff mem-bers at the school outnumbered their male counterpartsat a ratio of 3:1. Staff members ages ranged from 26 to

60. Staff turnover was low, with a mean length of serviceof 9 years. The principal had 13 years of experience as ateacher and a further 6 years as an elementary schoolprincipal.

We collected data for this study from 18 face-to-facesemistructured audio-recorded interviews with the edu-

cators, observation of 5 group meetings (one every twomonths) and 10 grade-level teaching team meetings (oneper month) over the course of one academic year, andschool documents.

Each semistructured interview lasted between 30and 45 minutes; we used the questions as guides to con-versation rather than as an oral survey (Miles &Huberman, 1994). During the interviews, we asked theparticipants to respond to open-ended questions abouthow they understood the nature and sources of their per-ceived professional isolation, how and why they came tomake the decision to restructure their school, and thenature and content of collegial interactions they had withcolleagues during staff and grade-level teaching teammeetings. We also asked participants to describe to whatextent those organizational factors that seemed to facili-tate collegial patterns of interactions worked. Finally, wecollected official documents including the school mis-sion and vision statement, the organizational structurechart, ground rules of the grade-level teaching teams,meeting agendas, and minutes of staff meetings.

We organized, classified, and coded data from thetranscribed audio-taped interviews and field notes taken

during staff and grade-level teaching meetings in accor-dance with the principle of inductive research and com-parative analysis (Creswell, 1998; Glaser, 1967). Thisprocedure allowed us to progressively and inductivelydevelop themes and conceptual constructs (Mirriam,1998). We did our initial coding using a priori codesderived from the literature on collegial patterns of inter-actions and collaborative school organizational structure(see Table 3 on page 8). We included a few additionalcodes that emerged as the data required (Lincoln &Guba, 1985).To ensure the accuracy of the findings, we sent the inter-

view transcripts and our interpretations to research par-ticipants for member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).Furthermore, we addressed any problems of trustworthi-ness in the data by using multiple sources of data to tri-angulate multiple indicators of the same phenomenon(Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). As a result,we made some factual corrections and added additionalinformation. However, no participants suggested anycorrections of our interpretations.

7


8/14


Limitations of the StudyThis study was designed to provide anunderstanding of the dynamics of oneschools organizational restructuring into acollaborative entity conducive to the emer-gence of collegial practices in response to

perceived professional isolation of its teach-ers. However, one important limitation ofthis study, as in all qualitative case studies,was that the selected case is not necessarilyrepresentative. The dynamics of one schoolare not necessarily representative of itsschool district, province, or schools in gen-eral. Many factors differentiate schools,such as size, the type of community served(e.g., urban or suburban), capacity, andschool climate and culture. Any or all ofthese factors may have affected the translation of thisschools collaborative organizational structure into prac-tice in terms of the scope of its implementation and theprocesses used. The diversity of schools cultures andcontexts would undoubtedly lead to variation amongother leaders choices of strategies to achieve the best fitwith their schools own goals and capacities in address-ing their perceived needs. Our assumption was that anyschool staff will respond in its own way to express itsneeds to change its structure (whether or not that be acollaborative organization) based on the social, organiza-tional, cultural, and political conditions of its own con-

text. Thus, we do not claim that this case is generalizable.A second limitation of this study was its reliance ondocuments, archival records, and interviews to paint apicture of how individuals shaped, implemented, andexperienced their restructured school organization. Theresults of this study were limited by factors of time, loca-tion, resources, and our ability as researchers to reachand gain the confidence of research participants.Although our intention was to present an accurate repre-sentation of the stories we heard and the documents wereviewed, the reality is that we were an instrument in thisresearch and can only hope that our relationship with the

research participants was such that they felt sufficientlycomfortable in reviewing and criticizing our findings toensure that they represent a reasonably accurate reflec-tion of participants perspectives and experiences.

Findings and Discussion

In this case study, research participants constructed andput into operational practice a specific process to trans-form their school into a collaborative organizational

structure. They made their own specific meanings and

had their own particular purposes for doing so. Theirdiscourse was focused mainly, and almost exclusively, onestablishing a collaborative school structure to confronttheir perceived professional isolation. They wanted toengage in professional collegial practices to addressissues of teaching and educational planning. However,they stayed clear of engaging in a discourse of possibil-ities (Lavi, 2006) that would have involved criticalcollaboration (Smith, 1996) through the critique oftheir teaching and planning practices. We believe thatthis could explain the dominance of weak forms of col-legial practices in this school, despite the intentional

effort to create a more collaborative school organization-al structure.

Reasons for and Process of Organizational ChangeWithin the SchoolA feeling of professional isolation was at the forefront ofthe educators life in the school. This aspect of the pro-fessional school life first came to the surface during aretreat focusing on strategic planning for the new aca-demic year. In dealing with the issues of areas in whichaspects of school life could be improved, agreementdeveloped among educators about the general characterof the school. It was perceived as a professional environ-ment having strong norms of isolation that left all tostruggle with their problems and anxieties privately,spending most time physically, socially, and intellectual-ly apart from their colleagues. Some educators comment-ed as follows:

We felt that teachers in our school were individ-uals living what I would call a quiet life of des-

8


9/14


peration. Previously, we were all working in anassembly-line kind of structure. We were all sobusy and overworked with the job that we hadin front of us. We didnt have the time to think ofprofessionalism. What was really good? Whatwas really bad? You were just trying to survive.

You were just trying to stand on the line and doyour job, basically. (Interview Educator D)In spite of the fact [that] parents were extremelyhappy with the school, teachers were experienc-ing a deep sense of isolation. We should havebeen happy with just being part of one of themost effective and popular schools in our dis-trict, but it didnt seem to be enough for most ofus. Besides socializing when we could during theday, there was no time for human contacts.Lunch time was our big social time. (Interview Educator J)Interestingly, the issue of isolation in what seemed to

be a great school started a cyclical inquiry process bythe staff. Once they became aware of their common per-ception of isolation and came to an agreement, theyembarked on a discussion about the implication ofinquiring into the issue of isolation.

We wanted to change the nature of our relation-ships, our patterns of relating to one another.However, we had to come to grips with what itmeant to address this issue of isolation head-on.Did we really want to do it? We were asking our-

selves if we were ready to share information,decision making, work more closely together, orcollaborate more intensively than before. Weknew that any action would bring deep change.It was a matter of being ready to do it andassume the consequences. (Interview EducatorA).Here, the educator is alluding to the fact that the staff

were operating and interacting within an organizationalstructure that hindered their ability to connect and inter-act professionally in a collegial manner. They were look-ing at initiating an organizational change that purported

to bring transformational changes in terms of collegialityand reduce perception of professional isolation.Furthermore, being fully aware of the generalized feelingof professional isolation, they came to the realization thatthe task of reducing professional isolation was beyondtheir individual capacities. Collective leadership andmutual trust were central to embarking on such a changeprocess.

It takes a lot of guts and trust to take account ofthe views that other colleagues holdnot onlyabout how they experience isolation but viewsabout how a good school with a strong sense ofbelonging should be organized. (Interview Educator M)

We had to be transparent in our motives. We hadto feel safe from retribution of any sort. We allneeded to develop trust in each other. Withouttrust and a sense of safety, this transformation ofour school would not have been possible.(Interview Educator K)

We found three aspects that characterized this organiza-tional restructuring process:

Forging an initial agreement about the taskat hand. Building leadership capacity. Building trust.Staff members agreed on the purpose of the collabo-

rative effort: to change the schools internal organization-al structure as a means for coping with their feelings ofprofessional isolation. By agreeing on the purpose for col-laborating around issues of teaching and planning, theyconsidered elements of organizational structure thatwould be viewed as effective in dealing with professionalisolation. Building leadership capacity became central inkeeping this process of collaboration going. We witnessedinformal leadership develop among the educatorsbecause the process of change did not rely on clear-cut,

easily enforced, centralized direction. Some educatorsplayed a leadership role as sponsors (they had consid-erable prestige, authority, and access to resources), whileothers played a leadership role as champions by focus-ing on keeping the collaborative effort of restructuringthe school going by using their relational and politicalskills. As one educator indicated:

I think that pretty well everybody was commit-ted to this project. They contributed according totheir individual knowledge and ability to lead. Itwas quite a good example of being complemen-tary to each other. (Interview Educator E)

In this case, trust was the glue that held peopletogether, as well as the lubricant that facilitated the workand kept the collaboration going. We found that trustbuilding was an ongoing requirement in this process ofrestructuring the schools organization:

We trusted each other. We shared our personalexpertise and ideas. There was a common bondand a sense of good will among us.

9


10/14


Understanding each others experience of profes-sional isolation, and how to cope with it, built asolid trust in the legitimacy of the process wewere going through. (Interview Educator C)However, absent from the change process was criti-

cal discourse (see Table 1) in which research participants

might have worked to get to the core of the value com-mitments that underpinned the current school structure.To the contrary, participants focused much attention onthe instrumental issue of professional isolation; questionsof the purposes of core elements of schooling were mar-ginalized. They saw restructuring the school organiza-tion not as a process of questioning values but as a tech-nology for addressing perceived professional isolation bynurturing the emergence of collegial practices. Theyapproached the issues of a collaborative school organiza-tional structure and teacher collegiality strictly within thediscourse of professional isolation. In their discourse,research participants clearly restricted their intentionalrestructuring to the solely to address professional isola-tion. As a result, we cannot report about deep transfor-mation of the organizational structure; we can reportmerely about surface changes made.

Emerging Patterns of Collegial Interaction Withinthe Restructured School OrganizationBasically, the way research participants restructured theirschool into what they perceived as a collaborative orga-nizational structure mainly improved the effectiveness of

the organization in facilitating the emergence of somecollegial practices that responded to perceived feelings ofprofessional isolation. The reorganization was done with-out disturbing or fundamentally altering basic featuressuch as goals, structures, and roles. It is within this mod-ified school organization that we have developed a betterunderstanding of the organizational behaviors andactions of research participants in terms of the predomi-nant emerging types of collegial practices.

We discovered a dichotomy between the way educa-tors perceived their experience of the new school organ-ization in terms of its emerging collegial interactions and

the predominant forms of collegiality we observed dur-ing grade-level and general meetings. This commentmade by one educator captures this common perception:

In a general way, what I like about collegiality isthat it touches on the whole notion of possibili-ties. It allows me the opportunity or the possibil-ity of being able to teach with my colleagues. Itallows me to take chances or risks in implement-ing different strategies. It allows me to plan with

teachers, implement with them, and talk aboutit [the lesson] after it has taken place. What I amtrying to say is that this allows me to feel goodabout taking the chances that I am taking in away that is not very threatening. I feel positiveabout this, even though I know I may be chal-

lenged, my values may be challenged, or the wayI teach may be challenged. I think it allows thatI might not feel good about it at the momentfor example, when someone questions me andsays, This is not really effective or the way itshould be or How about trying it this way?(Interview Educator A)Other participants indicated that collegial interac-

tions should not be limited to anecdotes, giving aid onlywhen asked, or pooling existing ideas:

I think that we need to confront each others val-ues and ways of understanding what goodteaching is. I didnt have many chances to do so,but I think we should look into having moreworking sessions like that. (Interview Educator F)Sometimes, I would like to create new projects,new material for students. Up to now, several ofus have pooled our teaching ideas and materialstogether and put them in files to be shared withothers. (Interview Educator J)However, what we observed during grade-level

meetings and general school meetings painted a differ-

ent picture. In their actual interactions, we found thatparticipants kept critical analysis of one anothers prac-tices, as well as the tougher questions about their workand how to improve it, completely off the agenda.

How can we increase the literacy rate at the end ofthe primary years (grades 1 to 3)? This is an issue that iscentral to todays meeting. Teachers are looking at waysthat could help to increase the level of literacy (readingand writing) in both French and English. They focus onthe time allotment in the schedule for the teaching ofreading and writing. The problem is treated as a questionof time and scheduling, not in terms of teaching prac-

tices. The latter is kept off the agenda. One educator sug-gests that they should consider implementing guidedreading across grades. This suggestion leads the discus-sion toward the meaning of teaching reading. They areconflicting with each other as some educators expressthe view that such a decision is up to each individual.They decide to allocate money to build up collections ofgraded reading books to be used by educators in theirown classrooms. The chance of discussing alternative

10


11/14


ways of understanding reading learning processes andtrying cutting-edge new ways of doing things is of noavail (Excerpt from field notes grade-level meeting November 2002).

The evidence codified in our field notes and corrob-orated by research participants shows that the reorgan-

ized school structures primarily facilitated the emer-gence of these forms of collegial interactions: lending andborrowing material; brainstorming; preparing lessonplans; praising other teachers and offering reassurance;giving advice to others, when asked; and sharing con-cerns, problems, and criticisms of the school.

Our findings indicate that the forms of collegialityexperienced by the participants were limited to poolingexisting ideas, scanning for specific ideas, asking for aidand assistance, and sharing ideas and materials withoutsubmitting them to critical analysis or extending them.Participants emphasized reassurance and sympathy

while discouraging close scrutiny and criticism:I dont think that we really bargained for havingour stuff questioned and changed by other col-leagues. We wanted to function as a collegialgroup, but for most of us, it didnt mean muchmore than supporting each other in what wehave been doing up to now. For myself, it isimportant to be with others, work with them,and cry with them sometimes, but there areboundaries that I like to maintain and stuff thatI like to keep private and out of sight. It doesntmean that I wont be ready one day to ask someof my colleagues their opinion and judgmentabout what I am doing, but now, I like the waythings are right now. I feel like I belong and thatis important for me, and I dont want conflicts toruin that. (Interview Educator P)These findings corroborate the literature on the

dominance of comfortable kinds of collegiality inschools, even those with structural arrangementsdesigned to facilitate individual and uncontrived andagreed-upon professional collegial practices (Barth,1990; Fullan, 1991, 2007; Little, 1990). These kinds of

collegial practices restrict the extent to which teacherscan inquire into and advise one another about their prac-tice, because they keep at bay the tougher questionsabout their work and how to improve it.

In our study, the dominance of comfortable kinds ofcollegiality suggests that there were limits on the degreeof professional isolation that participants actually wantedto overcome through the reorganization of their school:

I am not comfortable to make comments onteaching practices of colleagues. It would sound

like I was making a judgment on their profes-sionalism. I would not like to have my ways ofdoing things to be judged by others, unless Iasked for it. If we are going to maintain trustamong ourselves, we need to keep dissension toa minimum. (Interview Educator A)

What we have deduced from our data is more ashifting of the boundaries that maintain some isolationor professional privacy rather than a total dismantling ofthem. This result could be explained partly by the factthat schools are pluralistic entities teeming with differ-ences, and the individual educators within them have theneed to maintain a certain degree of self-determinationover their professional work. Our study has shown thatfor the educators involved in the study, redesigning aschools organizational structure for the purpose of fos-tering collegiality (to overcome feelings of isolation) hascome to signify one way of accommodating those profes-

sional needs for collaborative relationships. At the sametime, such relationships protect the groups professionaldiversity by allowing individuals to maintain profession-al boundaries around their work. In this sense, our studyshows that a collaborative organizational school struc-ture inhabited by a plurality of singular professionalbeings may never lead to a total unity of experience orperspective within a staff. In our study, the drive to cre-ate collective frames of connection through collegialpractices among educators appeared to be always shift-ing, remaining porous and malleable as a way to managedifferences within the school.

None of our collected data spoke directly to the rea-sons underlying these forms of collegial relationships.However, we can derive from our evidence that theseeducatorsbesides not wanting to be perceived as criti-cal of others work, or being aggressive or inquisitive,and not wanting to be perceived as difficult to get alongwithwanted to maintain their boundaries and theirdegree of independence and self-determination from thecollective and from one another. We hold the view thatthe dominance of comfortable forms of collegiality wesaw and the resulting degree of privacy (or isolation)

between educators was the product of a tacit agreementsecured between them. Furthermore, our analysis rein-forces the argument that, in this case study, teacher-initi-ated organizational restructuring of the school was not aprocess of questioning values and examining alternativevisions of schooling; rather, it was a technology forimproving professional relationships within convention-al definitions of schooling. This would explain the dom-inance of weak forms of collegial practices as the mainresult of the school restructuring. In our study, research

11


12/14

participants adopted a collaborative discourse that calledfor a certain degree of professional interdependence andcollegial practices while retaining space for individualautonomy and discretionary professional judgment.

Implications of This Case Study

The body of data from this study is not sufficient to for-mulate significant and applicable recommendationsregarding the initiation and sustainability of deeper kindsof collegiality for teachers and administrators throughthe transformation of a schools organizational structureinto a collaborative one. However, our study highlightsthe importance of examining not only the structuralchange a school may make but also the process by whichthe transformation took place, including underlying val-ues and principles (such as the one we observed in thisstudy), In fact, transforming a schools organizationalstructure into a collaborative one is a value-orientedpractice (Lavi, 2006), which means that any suchrestructuring is a political endeavor requiring a thoroughquestioning of the rationale underlying it. In terms ofleadership practice and educational change, this casestudy demonstrates the need to attend to the differentways of understanding the notion of a collaborativeworkplace and the connection to the types of collegialpractices that can be sustained on a long-term basis. Thatis, although shaping the school as a collaborative work-place as a way to address professional isolation raises theissue of how to, this case study poses a more funda-

mental question of what for. This question was not partof the change process undertaken by the research partic-ipants. Instead, their restructuring initiative and theresulting kinds of collegial practices appear to have beenframed by a particular certain focus, meaning of collabo-rative workplace, and a value orientation underpinnedby a strictly instrumental rationality; any critique of thecontent and purposes of school fell outside these param-eters.

Further research is needed to focus on discerningand elucidating useful insights into better ways to facili-tate and sustain more profound kinds of collegial prac-

tices in schools. While the literature is rich in conclu-sions dealing with the why and how of the domi-nance of comfortable collegiality, it remains short onhard data explaining why and how a school can initiate,nurture, and successfully sustain educationally signifi-cant kinds of collegiality, as well as identifiable transfor-mations of teaching realities and practices. Our concep-tual framework would prove useful in identifying andinvestigating schools where more substantive kinds of

collegiality exist among teachers. It could also demon-strate the ways that some schools can be successful increating visible transformations of both their own think-ing and their teaching realities and practices while defin-ing the social, cultural, and organizational conditionsthat facilitate the emergence of deeper kinds of collegial-

ity.Further investigation of school conditions conducive

to deeper collegiality would lead scholars and field-basedpractitioners to realize that not all discourse underlyingthe construct of a collaborative workplace and collegialpractices aspires to transform teaching, learning, andprofessional relationships. Some conditions would likelyreinforce existing practices and values, marginalizingquestions of purposes and values while emphasizinginstrumental issues of schooling and interactions amongeducators. Like the Lavi research (2006), our case studyled us to argue that future research dealing with theemergence and sustainability of deeper kinds of collegialpractices should be conducted according to a discursivereading of approaches to teacher collaboration involvingdifferent visions of schooling and resulting from a differ-ent value commitment (Lavi, 2006, p. 796). As Lavihighlighted in his work, we believe that approaching thepractice of collaboration in a school setting and collegialpractices from one discourse or another ultimatelydepends on the vision of schooling we are committed toand the type of changes we wish to bring about (p.796).

Conclusion

Our research departs from the notion that the transfor-mation of an organizational structure into a deeper col-laborative and collegial school setting will necessarilylead to a significant dissipation of teachers perception ofisolation. In this study, the transformation of organiza-tional structure of the school elicited and molded, to anextent, the professional behaviors of staff members intoprofessional collegial patterns of interactions. However,despite the fact that the desire for uncontrived collegial-ity was mainly the result of a collective effort to addressthe issue of professional isolation, educators seemed to

have made individual choices to maintain a certaindegree of isolation, of privacy, shielding themselves fromreflective inquiry and criticism. Their motivation forengaging in such a restructuring effort was instrumentalin nature (reducing professional isolation); it was basednot on critical reflection of educators teaching practicesbut on building support and maintaining harmony. Theeducators maintained their boundaries around some oftheir professional activities in order to accommodate and


12


13/14


minimize tensions, conflicts, and opposition amongthemselves. Our evidence demonstrates that restructur-ing a school organizationally into a collegial setting as aprocess of coping with isolation might end up in shiftingrather than dismantling boundaries of isolation amongeducators. Our evidence aligns with findings by other

researchers that, given the autonomy that is inherent totheir profession and the discretion in emergent organiza-tional structures fostering collegial practices in copingwith isolation, educators make individual choicesregarding the extent to which they want to engage in col-legial professional interactions on the basis of individualconsiderations. (Bakkenes, De Brabander, & Imants,1999; Imants & Bakkenes, 1993).

ReferencesBakkenes, I., De Brabander, C., & Imants, J. (1999).

Teacher isolation and communication network

analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly,35(2), 166-202.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique andreconstruction of the community concept.Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1-23.

Campbell, P., & Southworth, G. (1992). Rethinkingcollegiality: Teachers views. In N. Bennett, M.Crawford, & C. Riches (Eds.), Managing change ineducation: Individual and organizational perspec-

tive (pp. 31-42). London: Paul ChapmanPublishing.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research

design: Choosing among five traditions. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deaudelin, C., Dussault, M., & Thibodeau, S. (2003).Les cause de lisolement des enseignantes et desenseignants. McGill Journal of Education, 38(1),49-51.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction:The discipline and practice of qualitative research.In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The hand-

book of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (pp. 3-28).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Flinder, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the newreform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,4(1), 17-29.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educationalchange. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces. London: FalmerPress.

Fullan, M. G. (2007). Change the terms for teacherlearning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35-41.

Fullan, M. G., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). What is worthfighting for? Working together for your school.Toronto, ON: Ontario Teachers Federation.

Glaser, B. G. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. New York:Aldine.

Graham, K. C. (2001). Promoting collegial relationshipsbetween physical educators and other faculty.Journal of Physical Education, 72(5), 52-55.

Grimmett, P. (2000). Breaking the mold. In T. D.Carson & D. Sumara (Eds.), Action research as liv-ing practice (pp. 121-136). New York: Lang.

Hoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing betterschools: The meaning and measure of enabling

school structures. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 37(3), 296-321.Imants, J., & Bakkenes, I. (1993). Professional isolation

of teachers, school culture, and teachers sense ofefficacy. In F. Kievet & R. Vandenberghe (Eds.),School culture, school improvement, and teacherdevelopment (pp.171-197). Leiden, NL: DSWOPress.

Irwin, J. W., & Farr, W. (2004). Collaborative schoolcommunities that support teaching and learning.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 343-363.

Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2002). The social dimensions of

teacher collegiality. Journal of Educational Enquiry,3(2), 1-20.

Johnson, B. L. (1998). Organizing for collaboration: Areconsideration of some basic organizing principles.In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools forcollaboration: Promise and pitfalls (pp. 9-25).Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lavi, J. M. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the argu-ments. Educational Administration Quarterly,42(5), 773-805.

Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transfor-mation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York:Preager.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experi-mentation: Workplace conditions of school success.American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.

13


14/14


Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy:Autonomy and initiative in teachers professionalrelations. Teacher College Record, 91(4), 509-534.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociologicalstudy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marks, H., & Louis, K. (1999). Teacher empowermentand the capacity for organizational learning.Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 707-750.

Matuzov, E., & Hayes, R. (2002). Building a communi-ty of educators versus effecting conceptual changein individual students: Multicultural education forpre-service teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton(Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century:Sociocultural perspectives on the future of educa-tion (pp. 239-251). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journalof Community Psychology, 24(4), 315-325.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expandedsourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mirriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and casestudy applications in education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Robson, C. R. (1993). Real world research: A resourcefor social scientists and practitioner-researchers.Oxford: Blackwell.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers workplace: The socialorganization of school. New York: Longman.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: Howto get extraordinary performance in schools. SanDiego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Smith, B. (1996). What did we mean when we arguedfor critical collaborative communities? In J. Smyth(Comp.), Schools as critical collaborative communi-ties. Adelaide, Australia: The Flinders Institute forthe Study of Teaching.

Smith, S. C., & Scott, J. J. (1990). The collaborativeschool: A work environment for effective instruc-tion. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management and the NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Uline, C., Woolfolk Hoy, A., &Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter schoolsthrough collaboration. Journal of EducationalAdministration, 38(3), 247-272.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The develop-ment of higher psychological processes (M. Cole,Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Welch, R., & Panelli, R. (2007). Questioning communi-ty as a collective antidote to fear: Jean-Luc Nancyssingularity and being singular plural. Area,39(3), 349-356.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zellermayer, M. (2001). Resistance as catalyst in teach-ers professional development. In C. M. Clark (Ed.),Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacherleaning (pp. 40-63). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Zellermayer, M., & Margolin, I. (2005). Teacher educators professional learning described through thelens of complexity theory. Teacher College Record,107(6), 1275-1304.

14

IJEPL is a joint publication of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University, and the Collegeof Education and Human Development at George Mason University. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with prop-er attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings 90 days after initial publication. Copyright for articles published in IJEPL is retained by theauthors. More information is available on the IJEPL Web site: http://www.ijepl.org

gerald fallon - impacts of sch org

Documents