1
‘Creative Schools’ as Effective ‘Learning Communities’
Barry Cocklin and Ken Davis
Introduction
There are those occasions when, as a visitor, you enter a school and there is a certain, very subjective, feeling that things are working. The students and teachers appear comfortable with their situation, there is a sense of enjoyment, and a feeling that learning is taking place. Furthermore, there is a strong sense of ‘community’ and interaction, and often support derives from the wider community context. Such were my impressions when I first came to Rana Primary School in September 1995. Although the Principal (Ken) and I had worked together at the university when he was seconded the previous Semester, I had never visited the school and it was not until September that being allocated supervision of two practicum students provided me with the necessary ‘excuse’ to spend some time there. Following the practicum, I continued to spend time at the school, working with small groups of students, teaching some lessons to the Upper Division group (Years 3 - 6), working with some individuals from Lower Division (Kindergarten - Year 2), and participating in end-of-year school-community functions such as the fete, where I was asked by parents to play ‘Santa’, and Concert where the Parents & Citizens (P&C) presented me with a gift of thanks for my assistance and support to the school.
It was during this time, also, that we discussed the possibility of conducting a research project during 1996. This derived from two aspects. First, was the subjective sense that things appeared to be working at this school, and so we sought to establish a description of the existing situation, within a notion that things can always be developed through a strategy of working with the people in the school and community. The second aspect was the consideration of the literature on both Learning Communities (see Cocklin et al, 1996) and Creative Teachers (Woods, 1995) which appeared to offer a basis of elaboration of the context.
Background
In conducting the study we have been influenced by our interpretation derived from this literature. We have done so in light of the current changes within education in New South Wales, some of the likely directions these changes may take, and a concern that many of these developments are being imposed from outside representing a greater politicisation and control over education. This is evident in the statements of devolution of control to the schools, yet coupled with the centralisation of control within the political realm (see, Bates, 1993). In NSW, this was clearly evident in the time following the Scott Report (1990). While Scott proposed to locate greater control in schools, the results were an increasing bureaucratisation, curriculum control firmly located within a central body, and the eventual recentralisation which occurred with the Labor decision to abandon regions, all underpinned by the managerial approach characterising both Scott’s work and subsequent reform agendas (see, Cocklin, 1992). This political paradox (see, Hargreaves, 1995) is perhaps seen most clearly where, while espousing freedom, the directions to Principals in 1995 stated “Your schools are to reflect the priorities of the present Labor Government’s educational agenda”, and that Principals needed to “understand your political context; know and implement the Labor Government’s priorities; appreciate your responsibility of ensuring a performance-driven system; have no doubts of the professionalism required of you as a Principal within the above context.” Within this there is also a further paradox of terminology. On the one hand, there are the claims for autonomy and flexibility, for creating an educational system responsive to the local context, where equality and quality are promoted. On the other, education is to become more business-like, more managerial, more efficient - defined in terms of market responsiveness and market forces. Increasingly, then, the terminology of education is being couched in terms of an instrumental, centralised, curriculum, standards which measure proficiency and allow comparisons between schools, a mono-cultural approach to content and pedagogy, and a domination by narrowly defined outcomes which are measurable in terms of quantity (see, Bates, 1993; Grundy, 1993; Woods, 1995; Retallick, 1994). This drive to managerialism, however, is contradicted by the bulk of educational research which shows that:
...good schools are those in which principals are leaders not managers, and in which teachers form a true community of professionals who talk a lot among themselves about school related matters. Good schools, contrary to the doctrine, spend more on education, pay more to teachers, have lower teacher/pupil rations and have more resources. (Snook, 1992:8-9)
In other words, the notion of a ‘good school’ evident within the research literature places emphasis upon issues of collegiality, a professional involvement in curricular and pedagogical development, a secure school culture involving parents and community, a secure and stable profession and school, school-based professional development, maximum use of learning time, and continuing resource allocation (see, Bates, 1993). Furthermore, this ‘school’ would be a site of reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983) in which:
Action which follows from planning will be collaborative, once again with every person encompassed within the field of action being responsible for the taking of action. Action will not necessarily be a process of problem-solving, but rather of further problem-posing which will be fruitful for future critical reflection. (Grundy, 1993:172).
This action should be directed towards an emancipatory praxis, one where:
The question for the educational leader is not “Am I emancipated and how can I emancipate my staff?” but, “How can I engage in forms of critical, self-reflective and collaborative work which will create conditions so that the people with whom I work can come to control their knowledge and practice?” (Grundy, 1993:174)
The notions of both learning community and an extended version to include that of a creative school seem to us most appropriate in seeking to promote this view of a ‘good school’. This assumes greater importance in light of recent pronouncements by the Department of School Education (DSE) that all NSW schools are to ‘become’ learning communities. The DSE has directed some attention towards the notion of schools as learning communities as a means of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (NSW Department of School Education, 1995). This approach has been based within the work of Senge (1990) on learning organisations in USA business organisations which emphasises a need to develop the capacity of the whole organisation to learn, rather than focussing on the learning of isolated individuals. On the other hand, ‘based’ is the descriptor in that the DSE terminology has been derived rather than based upon an analysis and interpretation, with an approach of implement rather than develop and critique in terms of the school context. Once again, then, this is a change imposed from without, and one where the business rhetoric has been ‘implanted’ without further consideration.
The Research
The initial intentions of the research arose from the first contacts with the school from discussions focussing primarily on seeking to determine ‘what worked and why’. The study commenced under a general question as to: what is it that makes the school what it is, and how can this understanding be better used and translated into more effective learning for the school and its community? In adopting this, we sought to start with a description of the culture of the school, then, through an action orientation use these findings to examine and reflect upon the situation, effecting strategies and processes of change and development as a result. The actual strategies and implementation are described in more detail in another paper (Cocklin & Davis, 1996).
The research has involved interviews of staff, students, and some of the parents, as well as extensive observations, by myself, while Ken has used ‘oral history’ interviews to focus upon:
what threads exist that are common to the community’s history and the school’s development, culture and ethos. What has happened in the past that has bonded the community and the school so closely together and how does this affiliation work to make the school the ‘learning community’ it seems to be.
While we have engaged in the action orientation in so far as an ongoing reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983) has been adopted, we had also intended to implement certain strategies in Term 2 on the basis of the cultural description derived from Term 1 data. However, two changes in the situation intervened. In Term 2, Ms Dean, a fourth year student on internship, took over the teaching of Upper Division. Although Ms Dean was willing to participate in the research and in any changes we wished to implement, it was evident that both her and the students were adjusting to a new situation as they developed their own new relationships and practices. It therefore seemed counterproductive to impose a further dimension on this situation, particularly in view of the importance of the internship for Ms Dean. Second, the internship program is designed to allow the released teacher to undertake a professional development project of their own. Ken had been asked by a number of the local schools to assist in their development of computer learning for both staff and students, and consequently he was away from the school more often than he was present.
With the project continuing, and with further analysis and reflection ongoing, the intention remains that these processes of both data collection and action will continue. As a consequence, we can only report on the initial data gathered, without being able to reflect upon the changes this has brought about, some of which are now being initiated in Term 3 as this paper is prepared.
The Context
Even though it is located only a few kilometres outside a major rural centre, the school and community are very much isolated and independent of their larger neighbour, which reflects both history and geography. Opened up in the 1930's as a series of rural blocks, the surrounding district comprises a number of small farms on the banks of a large river subject to occasional flooding which precluded denser settlement and has preserved the rural nature. The initial forty-one settler families , who balloted for the blocks, arrived in an area covered with weeds, no houses or roads and no boundaries to the farms. With the Great Depression in full swing, some of these people were among the unemployed, and all were pioneers in the sense that they had little more than the basic tools and a willingness to turn their block into a home to sustain them. Separated from the town by poor roads and a lack of transport, they came to rely on each other, and from early accounts rapidly developed a strong sense of community. Most occupied their land and lived in tents or shacks for the first few years while they built a permanent home, they walked to town for food, drew water from the river, and worked together to get their land prepared. As the Depression eased, some of the men obtained work in town, leaving further development of the farm to their family, and to evening work. Indeed, accounts describe fencing activities undertaken at night where lanterns were placed on posts to align them, and ‘all the community turned out to help’.
In 1935 Rana Primary School was opened. At the start, it was a one-teacher school, occupying a temporary classroom for the first year, although it has been a two-teacher school for most of its history. At present, the Principal teaches Upper Division, and Ms Osborne, new to Rana this year, teaches Lower Division, while there is also a part-time release teacher/librarian, school secretary and school handy-person. There were 38 students at the start of the research, 18 (9 girls, 9 boys) in Upper Division, 20 (9 girls, 11 boys ) in Lower Division. Although the majority of students come from the Rana district, others travel past their local school to attend Rana Primary.
There were also some events in recent history which have exerted an effect upon the data gathered. In particular, Semester One of 1995 saw Ken teaching at the University and a relief Principal take over the school. As some of the data illustrated this provided a context where both students and parents reflected upon the situation and made evaluations based upon a judgement of difference between this and the ‘norm’.
Rana Primary: the data
From the data gathered and analysed to this point, certain factors have emerged as central to an understanding of the culture of the school. Again, these are in the process of further analysis and data gathering, as well as underpinning current reflections and developments within the school.
History
It was apparent that some of the current situations within, and perceptions of, the school reflected the historical context of both school and district, which, as Ken suggested, should serve to remind us that:
The school has ‘reaped the rewards’ from the historical development of the community and will continue to do so as long as it remembers its origins and ‘feeds’ the needs of the community to be involved.
This, we suggest, reflects a point of difference from the notion of continuous improvement derived from the corporate sphere (see, Senge, 1990) which underpins much of the change rhetoric at present. Rather, within educational contexts there are elements of the school we may wish, upon critical reflection, to preserve (Hargreaves, 1995).
From the oral history interviews, certain characteristics of the school, and school-community relationships, emerged. One of the dominant themes was that of ‘pride’, as a past-pupil from 1938 recounted:
It went from one generation to the other and that went down through the school. But you took a pride in your school. Because we went to the Rana School and I suppose because we were all so close we took pride in the school so much so that even when we grew up, the ones that didn’t shift away from Rana you still continued that same effort that your parents had.
This ongoing contact with the school reflects both an allegiance and ownership which continues to be a particular feature of the context. At various school functions, sporting carnivals, fete, and concerts, members of the local community, and past pupils, are regularly in attendance. Furthermore, during the research a number of past students have ‘dropped in’ when they have a day off from their secondary school. Not only do they come to the school, but there have been occasions where they have sat in on the classes, taken part in the lessons, and offered assistance to the teacher and students. This ownership and relationship with the school continues, as one parent commented about her older children who had left Rana:
Even with the bigger girls now, they pretty much think of Rana as ‘their’ school. I’ve got to tell them about it because they want to know what’s going on - anything that’s got to do with Rana they just help. It’s their school.
The sense of community and togetherness which underpins this ownership and allegiance owes aspects to the relationships among the first settlers where “Everyone helped one another.” This was also apparent in that it was community action which saw the school started and then involved the community in fencing the school grounds, planting trees and sinking a well for water.
This community sense was also seen in terms of an extended family of relationships:
All grew up like one big family - real close ties - all the generations of children [from the original settlers] went to Rana School.
Such generational ties continue, with one parent with two children at the school noting:
I went through the school, my mother went through the school, and my grandmother got the school going.
The notion of ‘family’ also extended to others, including the children from the Boy’s Home which occupied the original homestead for a period of time:
The kids who went to the school were like your children even though there were a lot of children from the Boy’s Home. Well, I know I, and I’m sure the rest of them did, that they sort of became part of your family too. You would walk into the school and they would all run up to you and say ‘how are you going?’ and make such a fuss. It made you feel good to be going and doing things for them.
The continuity of relationships extends to involvement with the school, certainly amongst a core who have returned as parents in the P&C and general support for the school, but also just in general from among the local community:
The community looks on the school like it’s our school, I know I do, sort of take pride in it and like if I drive past and see a light on I’ll come in and see what the light’s for.
While this has presented but a slice from the history, certain aspects do emerge as ‘themes’ which help to elaborate the relationship. There has, then, been a sense of pride, involvement, allegiance to and ownership of the school from the early days, all of which continue to be demonstrated in the current context of both perceptions and relationships between school and community. From the initial settlement, and the experiences of the settlers who sought to develop their land and environment for the good of all residents, derives the perception that ‘what we do is for the kids’. The strong community-school relationship was evident in the way in which the community sought to have the school built, the fencing of the grounds, the planting of trees, and the continued close relationships between the community and the school. The issue of involvement has included not only the relationships outside school, but also in the way in which those generations of past pupils and parents, as well as those within the community, maintain their links with the school. These aspects have contributed to a sense of ‘stability’ which was recounted during these interviews as a strength of the school and community, and which continues particularly from the relationships between the school and the original families and their descendants.