An Organizational Learning Perspective On School Responses To Central Po!icy Initiatives

In developing a vision of schools capable of responding effectively to their challenges to change, futurists and reformers must solve two closely linked problems inherent in their positions. One problem is the risky business of predicting the future social and economic consequences of present trends; the other is the improbability of accurately and precisely specifying the characteristics of schools adapting to such consequences. The concepts of the "learning organization" and "organizational learning" (OL) provide a potential framework for solving the two problems. This paper reports on research, conducted as part of a 5-year study of policy implementation in British Columbia, which described the school conditions that foster and inhibit organizational learning. Data were collected from interviews with a total of 72 teachers and 6 principals in 6 schools located in 4 British Columbia school districts. The schools were selected to represent a broad spectrum of potential school organizations: one primary, one elementary, a junior secondary, two secondary, and one senior secondary school. The OL framework includes five sets of variables: stimulus for learning, organizational learning processes, out-of-school conditions, school conditions, and outcomes. Findings indicate that: (1) organizational learning processes are highly varied; (2) district contributions to OL in schools are underestimated; (3) a coherent sense of direction for the school is crucial in fostering organizational learning; and (4) sources of a school's coherent sense of direction are not obvious. Four tables and one figure are included. Contains 21 references. (LMI) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made A from the original document. * *********************************************************************** An Organizational Learning Perspective On School Responses To Central Po! icy Initiatives Kenneth Leithwood, Doris Jantzi, and Rosanne Steinbach Centre for Leadership Development and Department of Educational Administration The Ontario Institute for Studies In Education 252 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5S 1V6 Tel: (416) 923-6641 Fax: (416) 926-4741 [Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1995] US DEPARTMENT OF -DUCATION Oftice or EduLationai Rater h and Improvement ED TIONAL JPICES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Tnis document haa been reproduced as received trom the person or organization originating r Miner changes have been made to improve reproduction Duality Points of view oDinionsetsted in this docu ment do not necessarily represent othciai OERI position or pohCy -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MAITIAL biAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CEN rER leRIc). An Organizational Learning Perspective An Organizational Learning Perspective On School Responses To Central Policy Initiatives Like members of most contemporary organizations, educators are swamped with arguments for why they must change. Futurists point to current trends in society-at-large that portend enormous consequences for the design of future schools (e.g., Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985). Reformers offer images of what future schools might look like were they to respond seriously to these trends (e.g., Schlecty, 1990; Perkins, 1992; Dixon, 1992). In developing a vision of schools capable of responding effectively to their challenges to change, two closely linked problems inherent in the positions adopted by these futurists and reformers must be solved. One problem is the risky business of predicting the future social and economic consequences of present trends; the other is the improbability of accurately and precisely specifying the characteristics of schools adapting to such consequences. Centrally generated initiatives to restructure schools like those evident in many countries, at present, are the products of efforts by policy makers to solve these problems. These initiatives, however, invariably stop short of providing a comprehensive vision of a school successfully embodying solutions to these two problems. The "learning organization", is one promising vision for future schools and "organizational learning" a promising perspective on the processes for getting there. Envisioning future schools as learning organizations does not require exceptional accuracy in predicting consequences for the future of current trends. That schools will continue to face a steady stream of novel problems and ambitious demands is the only prediction required. These demands and problems most certainly will generate considerable pressure to learn new and more effective ways An Organizational Learning Perspective of doing business. This is a pretty safe bet. Indeed, it is a bet that a great many nonschool organizations are prepared to make as they attempt to reinvent themselves. Vivid testimony to this claim is to be found in the remarkable following enjoyed by some of the more recent, popular accounts of the learning organization (Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). And while the nature of this following raises the specter of a quickly passing fad, the long-standing and distinguished literature on organizational learning within the domain of organizational theory argues otherwise (e.g., Levitt & March, 1988; Hedberg, 1981; Argyris & Schon, 1978). Research described in this paper is part of the most recent phase of a five year longitudinal study of policy implementation in the Canadian province of British Columbia (Leithwood et al, 1994; 1993; 1991; 1990). Since 1989, the government in that province has been pursuing initiatives originating from a Royal Commission report aimed at the comprehensive restructuring of schools. In the B.C. context, "restructuring" encompasses changes in such aspects of schooling as curriculum, assessment, attention to diverse student needs, classroom and school organization, teacher development, the role of school leaders, relations with parents, and links with the wider community and with post-secondary educational institutions (e.g., B.C. Ministry of Education, 1989). Among the objectives in all phases of this research has been an attempt to account for variation among schools in the nature of their response to these central policy initiatives, and the degree to which their responses have been productive. In some phases of this research, "productive" has been defined as a function of the extent to which policy initiatives have been implemented (Leithwood et al, 1990, 1991); in other phases "productive" has been judged, more fundamentally, in terms of student outcomes (achievement, participation and identification) (Leithwood et al, 1994). Results of previous phases of the research increasingly have directed attention toward individual and collective learning processes ("organizational