sri theory of action - paulo freire freedom schoolsri theory of action feb 2016 5 usdan, 2002) work....

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).


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


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


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 &


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


Communities


Communities



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



Communities


Communities



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.


Communities


Communities



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


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


Communities


Communities



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.


Communities


Communities



Conservatism


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


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


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.

sri theory of action - paulo freire freedom schoolsri theory of action feb 2016 5 usdan, 2002) work....

Documents