Towards a Quality-oriented Culture in Schools

Eric Verbiest

Fontys Training Institute for School Management, The Netherlands

Quality Assurance

It is possible to distinguish three elements in quality assurance (Oosterhuis et al., 1995):

1. establishing (new) targets that have to be achieved;
2. realizing these targets;
3. establishing whether these targets have been met.

This distinction makes it possible to view quality assurance in schools on the basis of two different philosophies (Voogd, 1989). On the one hand quality assurance can be viewed on the basis of an external philosophy of accountability. This philosophy focuses on being accountable for the conducted policy to those who manage and monitor the institute or the programme. When viewing quality assurance in this way the focus is very much on the third element of quality assurance: establishing whether the targets have been met. In particular external parties will have to try to chart the quality achieved by the schools. For example, the inspectorate of primary education in the Netherlands has developed a method in recent years (the so-called integral school supervision), whereby it investigates in schools:

• to what extent the educational learning process in the groups is of sufficient quality;
• to what extent the school realizes a sufficient output;
• and to what extent the school conditions are sufficiently favourable for the quality of the educational learning process and for realizing a sufficient output (Inspectorate, 1997).

Philosophy of accountability	Philosophy of development
Establishing whether the targets have been met	Establishing the (new) targets that the school wishes to realize Realizing these targets Establishing whether the targets have been met

On the other hand quality assurance can be carried out on the basis of an internal philosophy of development. In this case the focus is not only on acquiring an understanding of the quality of education, but certainly also – on the basis of this information – on improving this quality. The third element of quality assurance (establishing whether the targets have been met) is subservient to the internal development of the school (first and second element). On the basis of the obtained data it is possible to adjust the targets and the curricula, to promote the professionalisation of teachers, improve the internal and external communication, etc. The table below indicates the emphasis within both philosophies:

In recent years schools have shown an increasing interest in quality assurance (quality policy, quality management). This is the result of a number of developments which are taking place at and around schools.

The forces around schools: autonomy, innovation and accountability

Like other organizations, schools change under the influence of internal and external events, developments and processes. It is possible to observe a number of megatrends in these changes: large social, economic, political and technological changes can be found in the entire Western world. For example, the world economy has developed strongly; the role of the government has been limited; the welfare state has been privatized; there is a growing individualism; an increasing relevance of the biological method of interpretation; a growing importance of multicultural aspects in society and an increasing nationalism; a renaissance of religion; a growing importance of continuing education. It is not easy to predict what the consequences will be for learning and education. However, despite this it is possible to indicate certain tendencies which may (strongly) influence future education (for example, see Chapman, 1996; Van de Berg, 1997; Mahieu, 1998; Plomp, 1996; In ’t Veld et al. 1996). These are the forces by which schools are affected. These forces can be characterized by terms such as autonomy, innovation and accountability (Verbiest, 1998).
As a result of a growing doubt about the influence of centralized (national) government control, the role of government changes. This implies a change in the autonomy of schools. For the Dutch situation Hooge (1998) concludes that there is a shift in the autonomy. The formal scope for policy making for the board of a school has increased in a number of fields in recent years, whilst in other fields it has decreased. In general, schools have more freedom to allocate resources for housing and management, in the organizational structure of the school and in the field of personnel policy, such as selection and professionalisation. However, schools are also forced to take their environment more into account than before. The introduction of key targets in Dutch primary education (1992) has resulted in a limitation of the scope for policy making. Last but not least, schools are required to be more accountable to the government and to parents, which restricts the freedom of schools to pursue their own policies.
The primary process, the actual education in the schools, is changing and results in a number of partly related innovations. More information is available (although it dates rather fast); there is a demand for people who can deal independently with information technology; there is also a demand for people with communication skills. All these aspects reinforce the emphasis on learning to learn independently, on such skills as solving problems and creativity; and on attitudes (such as a desire to continue learning). The command of languages, and a knowledge of one’s own language and culture are becoming more important. Apart from these content-related innovations, the presence of more people from ethnic groups, of more children with learning difficulties in regular education and the didactic possibilities of the modern information technology will change the nature of education. An already visible expression of these innovations is a greater emphasis on the role of the teacher as a supervisor of learning processes. Apart from this, people also have certain expectations about the contribution of the school to social cohesion in general and to the processes of educating children, in which the role of the family is becoming smaller. By setting up so-called community schools (e.g. the Education Committee 2010, 1997), an attempt is being made to help educationally disadvantaged students by offering a broad curriculum and by working together with parents and organizations.
On the one hand schools have an increased autonomy in some fields, but on the other hand there is an increased obligation to be accountable. In the Netherlands this has been partly laid down by law. In the new Primary Education Act it is stipulated that the competent authorities must publish a school guide once a year. The school guide consists of information for parents and students about the work methods of the school, about its educational targets, the care for the young students with specific educational needs, about the use of the compulsory teaching time, about financial contributions, about the rights of parents, students and the competent authorities, and about the compulsory complaint scheme. The competent authorities should issue this school guide to parents. In the event of a referral to special education, the responsibility of the referring school is also very explicit. The increased accountability is also evident from activities by the education inspectorate, which has charted the quality of the schools in such a systematic way in recent years and examined it for compatibility with the intentions of the legislators. Moreover, for several years the achievement levels of schools have been published in the Netherlands (in Great Britain this was already the case). They are published both in the press and through so-called ‘quality maps’ which are drawn up by the Educational Inspectorate (Sikkes, 1998). In addition, parents and the (local) community will play a larger role in the school again, which will increase the pressure on the school to be accountable.

Consequences for the School Manager and Teachers

The forces described above result in a number of expectations with regard to the school manager, as a result of which his or her role has changed substantially when compared with the past. The school manager increasingly is expected to be in charge of processes of autonomous policy-making, innovation and accountability. This means that external (local, social, political) developments should be assessed with regard to their consequences for the school. On this basis it is possible to develop a strategic view of the growth potential of the school. These views should be made operational through organizational and educational structures, processes and innovations; and – again externally – it should be clarified that the school performs in such a way that it meets the expectations of people, thus receiving the support of the community. We can therefore see that the position of the school manager is shifting within schools. Such changes also are taking place in the Netherlands. He or she is developing from a leading professional to a chief executive. The school manager hardly teaches any more, but is increasingly asked to deal with external developments and the demands of the school itself.
However, the specific position of the manager in school organizations should also be pointed out. Education and learning takes place in the classroom. The teacher functions relatively autonomously. The influence of the school manager on the primary process, on the results achieved by students, is indirect and limited. It is therefore doubtful whether the reinforcement of the (formal) position of the school manager is also accompanied by an actual increase of his or her influence to manage processes of autonomous policy-making, innovation and accountability in a successful way. In order to gain a greater understanding of these processes, it is possible to apply a theory which views schools as professional bureaucracies (Van Vilsteren, 1984, Mintzberg, 1983). Here a distinction is made between two domains in the school: the professional, educational domain and the bureaucratic, managerial domain. In the managerial domain the school manager is the boss, deciding about such managerial affairs as finances, personnel and relations with the outside world. In the professional domain, where the teachers are in charge, decisions are taken with regard to educational issues. It is obvious that all kinds of processes take place between both domains, which means that one domain also influences the other. Sometimes an overlapping area is distinguished, in which the two domains negotiate and decide together.
The teachers manifest themselves as (relatively) autonomous professionals. A professional is somebody whose central task it is to develop new knowledge and/or use and apply this knowledge in professional practice. Professionals have therefore often followed a longer specific training before they are allowed to act independently in their job. However, once they are qualified, they work relatively independently. Only job practitioners with the same qualifications may express their opinion about the quality of the work of the professional. The mutual solidarity with regard to protecting oneself against external interference is relatively great.
This autonomy of the professional is necessary up to a certain level, certainly in education. Educating is still a profession which largely take place in relative isolation from colleagues. As a professional worker, teachers also need room to take their own decisions about the curriculum they teach. Autonomy is therefore an important work condition for teachers (Clement et al., 1995). However, this individual autonomy is under increasing pressure from rising expectations of the political and social environment, which wants schools to innovate and be held accountable. When the school makes promises to the outside world, it will also have to fulfil them in the classroom. The environment and school management will accept less and less that a teacher acts as an autonomous professional who decides for him/herself what should happen in the classroom.
These ideas can also be applied very well to quality assurance. The above-mentioned observed commitment of schools to be accountable results in quality assurance on the basis of an external philosophy of accountability. Studies by inspectorates and reviews by external commissions are examples of this. And of course the results of the external tests may have an influence on the policy pursued by the school, certainly when the results are less good and funding could be reduced or, in the worst case, the school could be closed. However, in view of the above-mentioned field of tension between the individual, professional autonomy and the necessity of a broad school policy it is not obvious that external requirements can also be applied in the policy of the school right into the classroom. On the contrary, there is a real chance that externally generated data about the quality of the school are not accepted or only appear to be accepted, and therefore hardly have an influence on the actions of the teacher in the classroom. Moreover, the emphasis on external requirements may also mean that much energy is invested in generating information for external organizations and in apparently meeting the external quality requirements (for example, students are also questioned by the reviewing commission when reviewing higher professional education, which is also a form of quality assessment. In a number of cases the management of the visited educational institutes prepares these students for the interviews with the review commission).
This means that we are dealing with an apparently paradoxical situation. On the one hand the educational sector demands that a teacher is autonomous, but on the other hand this autonomy must be limited in order to realize the desired school policy, for example in order to meet the legitimate wishes from the environment.

Restricted and Extended Professionalism

How should we deal with this field of tension? The solution does not lie in increasingly limiting the autonomy of the teacher, until he or she is just a mere executor of a school policy which is decided elsewhere and for which the school manager is responsible. This is not compatible with the space teachers need in order to provide a good education. They must have the possibility to decide how they should work with the students in a particular lesson. Moreover, strongly limiting the autonomy of the teacher is also not very compatible with the influence the autonomy of the teacher has on the primary process. The development and innovation of the school is difficult to realize without the participation and commitment of teachers. Emphasizing a school policy which is developed and realized without the commitment of teachers will have counter-productive effects: teachers may withdraw into their own classroom and not tolerate any interference; they may not trust or accept innovations from above; and teachers may limit their innovations to the classroom. It will be clear that this is a disaster from the perspective of quality assurance.
There is a way out from this situation: a slightly different view on the professional autonomy of the teacher. In this respect it is possible to distinguish between two views on organizational professionalism, that is to say, the complex of attitudes of teachers with regard to their work, expertise and skills. A distinction can be made between a restricted and extended professionalism (Hoyle, 1975). Teachers with a restricted view on professionalism are in particular focused on what is happening in the classroom. They have a content-related and didactic orientation and strongly concentrate on that what is happening in the classroom. Non-educational activities receive far less attention. Teachers with an extended view of professionalism relate the events in the classroom much more to the policy and targets of the school, and wish to participate at this level. They show a greater commitment to other than simply educational activities, and are strongly focused on working together with colleagues. Teachers with a restricted view on professionalism regard their job in a much more limited, however not lighter, way than teachers with an extended view on professionalism.
A study on the involvement of teachers in the introduction of innovations shows that it is likely that teachers in general have a restricted view on professionalism: teachers focus in particular on the daily functioning in the classroom (Clement et al., 1995). A study on the activities of school managers and teachers in primary education (Stoel, 1998) suggests that there are not many teachers with an extended view on professionalism. In quite a number of schools the head (and maybe also the deputy) has a workweek of 50 hours or more, while the other members of the team usually do not work for more than 35 hours. These 35 hours are largely devoted to the work in the classroom: teaching, preparing lessons and correcting work take about 33 hours. In contrast with this situation there are other findings which support the thesis that the ability of schools to develop and pursue the policy they want is related to the professionalism of teachers (Giesbers et. Al, 1995; Imants, 1997). The policy-making ability of a school and the professionalism of teachers are said to go hand in hand. Schools where teachers are more involved in the decision-making process (also with regard to managerial matters), therefore having a broader view on professionalism, also have a higher policy-making ability.
For this purpose a distinction has been made between quality assurance on the basis of an external philosophy of accountability, and one established on the basis of an internal philosophy of development. It is of course possible to combine both philosophies. The data which are generated from an external philosophy of accountability (for example as part of a process of integral school supervision) can also be applied in a school as an input to introduce improvements. However, in view of the above-mentioned analysis it should not be taken for granted that this will happen. If you wish to be both accountable for the quality of the school, and also develop and improve it, this requires an extended view on professionalism by teachers. In other words, in view of the professional nature of the school organization and the position of the teachers, quality assurance on the basis of a philosophy of development will only succeed if the teachers will also take into account external trends and demands which the school has to meet, and the need for their involvement in school policy.
Therefore it is possible to present a number of sound arguments to promote the development of an extended view on professionalism with teachers. In the first place it may reduce the tension which was observed above. An attitude of extended professionalism makes it possible to gear the policy of the school and the work in the classroom to each other. This means that the school will be able to meet more adequately the pressures of autonomy, innovation and accountability. On the one hand this requires a willingness of teachers to orient themselves towards the policy of the school and assume responsibility for this policy and to adapt their classroom work to this policy. On the other hand it also means that the school management has to create opportunities for the participation of teachers in the school policy and stimulate their commitment.
The advantage of this development towards a broader professionalism is clear: it is a condition for the success of quality assurance on the basis of a philosophy of development. In the second place, a broadening professionalism of teachers could also be an incentive for the policy-making ability of the school itself. And, last but not least, there are indications that the job satisfaction of teachers can be stimulated in a positive way through a collective responsibility and mutual support of the team, which is characteristic for this broad professionalism. (Gerards et al., 1995).

Collective Learning

The trend towards an extended professionalism as a condition for improving the quality of the school, can be considered as a process of collective learning or organizational learning on the part of the teachers and school manager. Learning involves digesting, absorbing, interpreting, storing and using information. The result is that one’s knowledge, attitudes and/or skills may change. Therefore learning is related to changed behaviour, or at least to a changing competence, on the basis of a change in the meaning attributed to experiences and phenomena. Moreover, we usually only refer to learning if one’s competence has improved (reading better, managing better, …). This description can also be used on the level of the organization. Collective learning assumes that the meaning which is attributed to phenomena changes, as a result of which an organization can act in a different way.¹
Learning in particular takes place by reflecting on one’s actions and experiences, with the aim of improving one’s actions. Learning is therefore both concrete and abstract, active and reflective. Learning takes place on various levels of action. The aim is to improve actions: doing the same thing in a better or more efficient way; or innovating by adapting the goals of one’s actions. People reflect on their own learning in order to improve this learning themselves.
Learning motivates by the creative tension between vision and reality, the permanent clarification and adjustment of our mental models. It involves our deep-rooted convictions about reality or images of reality and about how we act in accord with this reality. At the level of the organization as a system it involves all kinds of forces and processes and how these are related to and influence each other.
It will be clear that this understanding of learning deviates from the classic understanding. This classic way of learning in particular focuses on the acquirement of knowledge, whereby it is assumed that the transfer of knowledge is sufficient to change one’s behaviour. The emphasis is therefore on (abstract) theories. There is also a clear distinction between the role of the teacher as an expert and the role of the learner as a passive consumer of knowledge. The aim of organizational learning is to improve one’s actions by increasing one’s awareness of the often implicit, subjective views behind one’s actions. Another aim is to correct and enrich these actions through productive and well-tried insights. Here the learning takes place through dialogues, where the teacher stimulates the learning process as a facilitator, and the learner critically examines his or her own actions and that of others.
However, this does not mean that learning on an individual level within an organization implies that the organization learns from this. Strictly speaking, learning on the level of the organization is not even possible. An organization (or a team) is an abstraction and cannot create, spread, apply etc. knowledge. These processes are to be carried out by the people in the organization. If there is to be a ‘learning organization’, the learning should not only take place on an individual level, but also and mainly between individuals. The development of an organizational knowledge requires a social context, in which the tacit knowledge becomes explicit and vice versa. In this way it is possible to develop, spread and apply learning in ever-increasing units (individual, group, organization, even between organizations) (Nonaka et al., 1995).
If a school wants to learn as an organization, this requires collective in addition to individual learning processes (schools are very good in the latter type). These collective learning processes should contribute to a number of essential functions such as the development of a vision, applying this vision in a strategic policy while considering existing expectations, and working out this policy in actions. Moreover, a ‘learning school’ may be required to learn systematically from the gained experiences and, if necessary, adjust its vision, policy and actions.
The development of a broad professionalism is a difficult and long-term enterprise and may rightfully be considered as a change in culture in the school. Pretensions with regard to such a cultural change should not be esteemed too highly. A school is part of the permanent social (re)construction of reality by a process of attributing meanings to this reality. These meanings may differ between individuals and groups of individuals. Meanings are related to other meanings and form a complex system. People try to be coherent in their attribution of meanings. And the meanings which a member of the organization attributes to certain phenomena are co-determined by meanings which are attributed to other aspects of social reality, outside the organization. All kinds of subcultures to which the members of the organization belong influence the meanings which members of the organization (re)construct. As a result of this they determine the organizational culture.
The value which some boys from certain social-economic classes attach to working with one’s hands instead of intellectual work, because this is part of being a male in their ‘working-class culture’, also colours the (negative) meaning they attribute to secondary education. Examples of cultural influences on the organization include national cultures (Hofstede, 1991), the cultures of professionals in schools (Staessens, 1991), youth cultures (Bouverne, 1998) and sex-specific cultures of school managers (Krüger, 1994). Organizational culture can therefore be viewed as a process of permanently forming and reforming meanings, whereby meanings can be opposed by meanings, and some meanings have or gain more influence than others, depending on the power relationships in the organization (Angus, 1996). The aim of coherence in attributing meaning means that people mainly seek a confirmation of the meanings they have attributed and that they pay less attention to information which undermines these meanings. This implies that once attributed meanings remain the same. It may also mean that individuals or groups who have developed their own meaning or images with regard to each other will interact in such a way that they get a permanent confirmation from their image. It is only possible to change these images with much effort and often only with help from outside.
The following example may illustrate this: A school manager from primary education makes long work weeks. He/she hardly delegates tasks to team members, although they have capacity to carry out these tasks. When asking the school manager why he/she does not delegate, he/she doubts whether the team members have sufficient abilities. When he/she delegates something, has to explain everything extensively; this takes much more time than doing it himself. Team members say that they do not ask for more tasks, because the school manager likes to do everything himself. When they sometimes perform certain tasks to relieve the school manager, he/she follows every move and continually corrects the team members.
In this way both the school manager and team members maintain the image they have of the other(s). Such paralyzing interaction patterns have already been known for a long time in communication science (Watzlawick, 1970, 1989) and in system theory (Senge, 1990).
With assumptions that the organizational culture, like other organizational variables such as structure, can be managed and that the leader of the organization can control the culture of this organization (Schein, 1985), the influence of the broader social context and persistence of meanings is underestimated. In this way the influence that can be exerted on the meanings attributed by people in organizations is overestimated. Of course, managers of an organization (including school managers) have to a certain extent an influence on the processes of attributing meanings, for example through their influence on other processes, and through their access to information. However, they do not have any monopoly on the meaning which people attribute to organizational phenomena. Everyone is a participant in this process, while external influences also play a large role.
The starting-points for influencing the culture of an organization can be indicated as involving limited pretensions; participation of all those involved; a focus on clarifying processes of attributing meaning and a focus on the influence of meanings outside the organization; explaining the effects that meanings have in maintaining less effective interaction patterns; and gaining new experiences, so that new meanings can be created or old meanings can be changed (Van Zelm, 1990; Angus, 1996).

Towards a Culture of Quality Improvement

We will briefly discuss a number of strategies which may contribute to the development of a broad professionalism, and hence to the development of a culture in which quality is not only established externally, but also improved internally. In doing so we will consider creating a common vision, formulating strategic targets with the team, working with personal action plans and reflecting about one’s actions.
It is obvious that these are just a few examples and that the development of a broad professionalism requires much more than just applying these strategies. Besides, the realization of a quality policy will also require specific measures. In addition, the application of these strategies also demands a number of basic conditions for collective learning, which in particular refer to the culture of the school:

• Collective learning focuses on improving behaviour. The emphasis is on explaining the actions and the views, insights and values that lie behind these actions, and on correcting and enriching these views. Collective learning also requires of the participants that they are open about themselves, about those views, feelings and emotions which are related to professional actions.
• This also requires a great degree of mutual trust. The participants in a process of collective learning should be certain that the openness displayed by them will not be used against them. This applies even more if a formal-hierarchical relation exists between them, as is the case between the school manager and his team members.
• Apart from these basic attitudes, collective learning also requires skills in dialogue communication, such as explaining mental models, providing effective feedback, etc.

Schools which want to promote collective learning will sometimes – depending on their own qualities – have to consider recruiting an external counsellor, in order to let the process of collective learning proceed well.

Creating a common vision

A vision formulated by a school can be described as a value-oriented ideal picture of a desired future, which challenges and inspires, which is supported by almost everybody in the school and which has a stimulating effect on educational innovation (Lagerweij et al, 1994). A vision is essential if a school wishes to adopt an open attitude towards the environment and develop itself as an organization. In the paragraphs above we have already described the tension between on the one hand the necessary autonomy (up to a certain level) for the individual teacher, and on the other hand the increased need for an unambiguous school policy and common targets in the work of teachers. A vision may play an important role in this tension. A clear vision which is supported by the team makes it possible to broadly indicate the direction in which the school should develop itself, so that external developments and wishes can also be met. In particular when a great degree of freedom is given to individuals or groups of individuals in a school, because the work itself demands this, it is essential to formulate a binding but overall description of the way in which the work should be carried out.
Besides the fact that a formulated vision has to indicate the direction in which school should move, it may also have a motivating effect. The more a professional organization will succeed in reaching agreement between the organizational targets and the personal targets of the staff-members, the greater their involvement will be in the organization and the greater their energy and motivation.
How can a school work out a common vision? Well, to begin with, a school could point out that the formulation of a vision cannot be an isolated event, but that it has its own place in the development of the school. Furthermore, it is important that the vision is established through a process in which all staff members are involved.
The development of a common vision may take place through the following phases (also see Hutchins, 1989; Senge, 1995):
Formulating key words. In this first phase the focus is on a series of key words which may possibly occupy a central place. Such key words indicate which targets or results the school wants to achieve. Examples of such key words are: a tolerant attitude; co-operative behaviour; an ability to learn independently. In this phase staff try to formulate key words which in their opinion are part of this vision. A possible work method is that these key words are identified on the basis of a number of descriptions of ideal schools in the future.
Selecting key words. In this second phase, in a plenary meeting, the staff members offer a brief explanation of the key words which they think are most important. In this explanation – which can be limited to two key words – they will deal with the consequences for the schools if the vision that is based on these key words is to be realized. For example, what do these key words mean for educational targets, personnel policy, leadership style and grouping arrangements? It is important to avoid discussions during this phase and to understand each other very well. After this explanation the persons involved can have a mutual discussion in order to make a selection of a limited number of key words (for example, ten) which they consider are the most important ones to play a role in the vision.
Refining key words. Based on the list with selected key targets, the persons involved may first make an individual assessment as to whether the key words can contribute to the most important functions that are required of a vision. Are the key words helpful in taking the decisions that have to be made and in following certain work methods? Do the key words stimulate an involvement and commitment? Do the persons who are involved accept these key words sufficiently as a starting-point for their activities? Do these key words have a motivating effect? Are they inspiring for those involved?
If necessary, the staff members may propose refinements of the formulations to be discussed in a plenary meeting until agreement has been reached about the key words and their directive, binding and motivating qualities.
Formulating the vision. A study group (or a person with editorial skills) may now formulate a provisional text of a vision on the basis of the key words and the discussions. The concepts can be discussed until an acceptable vision has been formulated.
Such a process of formulating a vision requires much time and energy, However, if a school wants to have an effective vision, one with a directive function and one that binds and motivates, it does not suffice to have it formulated and supported only by the management or a small group in the school. Such would become yet another document existing without having much effect.

Formulating strategic targets with the team

Knowing that a vision is by definition general and future-oriented, it is important that this vision be translated into more concrete targets. This means that priorities have to be established and strategic decisions taken on the basis of an orientation which focuses on the environment.
Schools feel an increasing need to undertake strategic action. This is stimulated by the freedom schools have been given to pursue their own policy; by certain policy measures that require a long-term policy (such as preventing staff absenteeism due to illness); by policy measures which affect the continued existence of the school itself; by the greater influence of such elements of the environment as parents and the inspectorate; by such developments in the environment of the school as demographic-ethnic changes, changes in educational technology and in views about organizations. Schools have to reflect on all these changes and try to deal with them in an adequate way.
The classic process of strategic action is well-known from the management literature. After the fundamental targets of the organization have been established in a vision, an external analysis (of opportunities and threats existing in the environment) and an internal analysis (of strengths and weaknesses in the organization) are made. Strategic options can be found by combining these opportunities and threats with strengths and weaknesses. It is possible to assess which strengths can be applied or which weaknesses can be reinforced to use opportunities and avert threats. On the basis of basic values (the vision) which the school wants to realize, the various options that have been formulated in the previous phase are assessed and a number of strategic decisions taken. Last but not least, the decisions will be realized and therefore implemented in the organization (Keuning, 1987; Van Wieringen, 1993). This process of strategic action is rational-linear by nature, it is assumed that, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the future can be charted through rational analyses, strategic targets can be established and realized in the end.
Although apparently clear and promising, this method of strategic action has a number of disadvantages. Apart from the question as to whether the school will be able to collect the information on the basis of which it is possible to predict developments, and whether the school will be able to draw the right conclusions (for example, competing schools may also react to certain decisions taken by the school), such a process of strategic action also raises questions, in particular if the school wishes to promote collective learning processes in the school. For example, strategic action is often the privilege of the managers of the institution. It is also possible in schools that strategic decisions are formulated as it were from behind the desk of the school manager. However, in this way much of the information that is available in the school is not used and there is a risk of a one-sided assessment of developments. Moreover, formulating and implementing a policy in this way will often encounter resistance in the school.
In the alternative described below the unpredictability of the environment and commitment of the team members is taken into account. The focus in this alternative lies in the joint formulation of targets for the school, against the background of an already jointly created vision. The entire process requires quite a lot of time, although it can be conducted over a number of weeks or a few study meetings (Gauthier, 1995).
The team formulation of strategic targets can be phased in the following way.

1. Presentation of a summary of the vision. In order to keep the – already formulated – vision lively, and in order to stimulate a common starting-point for the formulation of the targets, it is advisable to present the vision of the team once again in one way or another.
2. Presentation of the most important external developments. As stated before, the formulation of strategic targets implies that the school has an open attitude towards the environment. The school should therefore have an understanding of the most important external developments. Before these relevant developments are presented, they can be charted by a study group. After this, these developments can be presented in a plenary meeting.
3. Establishing the areas that need to be improved. To start with, areas that need to be improved will be identified in groups and through specific brainstorming techniques. In addition, a number of ideas to improve the functioning of the school in these areas will also be mentioned. Areas that need to be improved may involve many aspects, for example the promotion of expertise, teaching methods, provision for students with special needs, co-operation with other schools. After this a plenary meeting should be held to seek consensus with regard to those areas that need to be improved, for example by clustering and selecting these areas.
4. Internal analysis of the school in relevant areas. When the areas that need to be improved have been identified, the formulation of the targets for these areas can be continued. However, it is advisable to include the internal analysis of the school. In this way it is a possible to formulate targets with a greater understanding of the school situation. This can also be prepared by a study group, which can chart the strengths and weaknesses of the school with regard to the selected areas that need to be improved through techniques for internal analysis. After having charted these strengths and weaknesses, they can be submitted to the team.
5. Suggestions for targets for every area that needs to be improved. This takes place in two phases. To begin with, the individual staff members indicate their interests, concerns and commitment with regard to the areas that need to be improved and offer recommendations for targets relating to these areas. Next, the school tries to formulate tentative formulations of targets in a number of small groups through dialogue, clustering and brainstorming.
6. Formulation of the targets for every area that needs to be improved. Now that a sufficient number of suggestions have been formulated for targets, it is important to identify those, which are supported by the entire team and to formulate them in such a way that they meet certain quality requirements. Depending on the size of the school, the formulations of the targets of the subgroups (from the previous phase) can be combined through a process of clustering by the entire team or a study group. Next, the targets can be refined in the study group, so that it becomes clear when a target has been realized. Finally, it is possible to present the targets at a plenary meeting and, after a possible adjustment, draw up the definitive formulations with the team.

Working with personal action plans

Van den Berg et al. (1998) describes a method whereby schools make use of personal action plans. These are short-term plans made by teachers for their classroom teaching. In these action plans a relationship is established with the policy of the school and with earlier action plans; the emphasis is also on supporting colleagues. Assuming that important educational innovations require a change in the behaviour and attitudes of teachers and are therefore not easy to realize, the focus is on small-scale and practical activities. These activities are part of the intended innovation, and also meet the needs and problems of the school management and teachers. This is why working with personal action plans is embedded in processes whereby the involvement of teachers and their experiences are explained.
Working with personal action plans can be combined very well with working together with colleagues. A fellow teacher can help to formulate the personal action plan, for example by coming up with ideas; the colleague may offer support during the realization of the plan, for example by giving tips, or by observing and discussing lessons. This colleague may also play a role in the evaluation phase. In this way processes of mutual coaching are created in the school, which stimulate the thinking of teachers and improve their skills (Bergen, 1996).
The most important steps in working with personal action plans are:

1. An understanding of the innovation. It is important that the teachers have formed a clear picture of the innovation the school wishes to introduce. The qualities of the innovation should be formulated as clearly as possible, for example in terms of instructional behaviour of the teacher, grouping patterns etc.
2. Evaluation of working with action plans in the past period. During this phase teachers can be informed about which aspects of the innovation have already been included by the school in action plans; how they can work together with colleagues and what kind of support can be expected from the school manager. This evaluation may also be prepared on an individual basis through a systematic evaluation of working with action plans by the teachers. In this evaluation it can be discussed what has been achieved and learned by the teacher and the students, which activities have been undertaken; which problems have been experienced and how they have been tackled; how it was to work together with a colleague; and what kind of support has been received from the school management. On the basis of these retrospective activities it is possible to offer suggestions for the following period.
3. Formulating new action plans. Here teachers can indicate what they want to achieve with the students and with themselves; which specific activities they want to undertake for this purpose; which specific problems they expect to encounter and how they want to respond to these problems; what help they would like to get from a colleague and how they want to help a colleague, and what kind of support they expect from the school management. Personal action plans may be presented in a team meeting, so that others can learn from these ideas and offer their possible support.

Reflective action

The above-mentioned strategies for learning by school teams refer to a number of specific functions of the school organization; developing a vision, translating it into strategic targets and applying it in concrete plans.
Apart from this, there are all kinds of situations in a school which provide real possibilities to learn together as a team. All kinds of (problematical) situations with which teachers and the school management are confronted – the behaviour of children, teachers and the school management itself, events in the environment of the school – offer opportunities to learn on a collective basis. Moreover, the learning process itself may also be the subject of learning.
The aim of the work method which is briefly described below – reflective action – is to stimulate and systematize collective learning. This should not only improve the learning processes of individuals, but also make the expertize of individuals available to others, as a result of which an organization can interpret certain phenomena in a different way and act better as an organization.
Reflective action is based on problematic situations with which team members are confronted. These are often complex, vaguely described but important: for example children being bullied in the classroom and in the school yard, or in the Netherlands a growing number of children who have difficulties with the Dutch language. Such problems often defy a clear description or rational analysis and it is difficult to offer an unambiguous solution. They are dilemmas rather than clearly delineated problems. The way in which a situation is interpreted, the goals an organization tries to achieve and the values which it brings to the situation, the conditions an organization wishes to observe (or not), require different decisions. When dealing with such problems, the subjective concepts which people have acquired on the basis of experience play a large role. They constitute the ideas and assumptions which we have about how certain things ‘work’, what is relevant in a certain situation, how things interact, how to act. For example, teachers have developed personal theories about what may contribute to an orderly classroom (during the first five weeks you must be strict, then they know the rules and then you can loosen the reins a little). With these subjective concepts the incomplete, vague and unclear information which people often encounter can be reduced quickly and efficiently, and decisions can be taken on how to act. These subjective concepts are often implicit and cannot be changed easily. This is connected to the fact that they have often been developed on the basis of (fragments of) experiences and have already proved their worth. A school manager who only thinks that a teacher is recalcitrant when he or she refuses to use an innovation in the classroom, does not have any idea of the specific efforts a teacher has to make when implementing this innovation. The school manager may try to exert pressure on the teacher, as a result of which the resistance of the teacher will increase. Subjective concepts are therefore not easy to change, because they often have a restrictive effect on learning from new experiences.
The aim of reflective action is to make these subjective concepts explicit, and to correct, supplement and enrich them. It is a characteristic of reflective action that the aim is to make one’s own subjective concepts explicit; to correct and enrich these concepts through an analysis of problems on the basis of various perspectives; to establish a link between initial interpretations with (practical) theories and research which have proved to be productive in the past – as a result of which the relevant factors in the problematic situation and the implications of the problem become visible. Furthermore, the aim of reflective action is to improve one’s actions. This implies that the problem situation is interpreted in relation to the starting-points and vision of the school and in relation to other problems. It also means that the problem situation is analyzed with regard to it’s consequences for students, staff, the organization, strategy, curriculum, etc., and that an attempt is made to draw conclusions which focus on influencing people and situations, taking into account the special possibilities and restrictions of the particular problem situation (Asbaugh et al., 1995; Hallinger et al., 1993; Leithwood et al., 1992, Osterman et al., 1993, Schön, 1983, 1987; Verbiest et al., 1996).
Moreover, an important characteristic of reflective action is its dialogue nature. Reflective action is based on a dialogue process. This may be an internal dialogue, in which an individual critically investigates his or her subjective concepts through introspection. However, at least as effective is the explicit dialogue between professionals who help each other to make their own subjective concepts explicit and to correct and enrich them.
The process of reflective action can be described on the basis of the so-called Kolb cycle (Kolb, 1984, 1993). This learning cycle offers a model for reflective action through its systematic emphasis on both reflection and action, and by linking an abstract theory with concrete experience. On the basis of this learning cycle it is possible to distinguish four different stages in reflective action:

1. Doing: Here the key issue is concrete action. Those involved (the school manager, a teacher, the team ..) try to solve a problem, realize a policy or carry out plans: chair a meeting, try out a new approach in the classroom, introduce consultations with colleagues …. The quality criteria for this stage, which are aimed at realizing plans, pursuing a policy and formulating certain intentions, include effectiveness, efficiency, social efficiency, satisfaction of those involved and the continuity of the school.
2. Reflecting: Often there will be a discrepancy between the expectations people have of certain actions and their results. This discrepancy is the starting point of the second stage: it is the phase of reflection. The interpretation of the concrete experience is a central issue here. Those involved view their experiences with a certain detachment. They try to understand their experiences and attribute a certain meaning (or meanings) to them, to distinguish between cause and effect from what is happening. Why does a meeting not proceed as planned? Why does coaching by colleagues not go beyond the phase of intentions? It is also important to make as broad an analysis of the situation as possible. This assumes an analysis of the problems by schools on the basis of various perspectives (e.g. Bolman, et al., 1993; Dalin, 1989).
   It is important not only that individuals interpret these matters, but that they exchange their interpretations in a dialogue with those involved. It is also important that the viewpoints (goals, values, experiences) of others are included in the interpretations. Furthermore, it is essential to place the analysis and interpretation of the situation in the context of the school and find similarities with other problematical situations. A major quality criterion for this stage is to interpret the problematical situation clearly on the basis of various perspectives, while taking into account the goals and values of those involved.
3. Thinking: At this stage it is important to reflect more deeply about certain matters on the basis of the analysis that was made during the second stage. These reflections should be based on relevant (practical) theories. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding by linking these interpretations with (systems of) concepts and theories, and with long-term goals, principles and values which the school wants to pursue. For example, it is possible to seek information about how to influence factors that play a role in the problem situation. There are well-tried views about the implementation of innovations that may play a role when the introduction of innovations is a key problem. Here the participants in this reflective action may also enter into a dialogue with each other in order to enrich the initial interpretations. An important criterion of success of this stage is therefore that relevant factors can be included in the analysis of the problems: such factors as personal and professional principles and values, goals, restrictive factors, implications of the problem for students, staff members, the school as an organization, strategy, curriculum etc.
4. Deciding: At this stage the persons involved wish to draw conclusions which are aimed at acting, at influencing people and situations. It goes without saying that the principles, values, factors, obstacles and context, as clarified at earlier stages, are included. For example, if the problem refers to the implementation of innovations, it may be asked to what extent personal action plans offer opportunities? Various techniques, for example force field analysis (whereby restrictive and stimulating factors for achieving a certain situation can be distinguished), may have a supporting effect in order to formulate concrete action proposals (also see Karstanje, 1993). The success of this stage is measured by criteria such as the application of principles, values, factors, obstacles and context with regard to short-term goals and activity plans and by testing how the criteria of effectiveness from the first stage are dealt with.

The following diagram will show the various stages and the most important objectives of each stage:

The learning cycle of Kolb as a model for reflective action

References

Angus, L (1996), “Cultural dynamics and organizational analysis: leadership, administration and the management of meaning in schools“ in K Leithwood (ed.) (1996), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 967 – 996.
Asbaugh, C (1995), Educational Leadership: Case Studies for Reflective Practice. White Plains. Longman.
Aspinwall, K (1997), “Schools as learning organizations“ in B Fidler, Choices for Self-Managing Schools: Autonomy and Accountability, London: Paul Chapman Publishing et al.: 227 – 241.
Berg, R van de et al (1998), Adaptief Onderwijs: hoe doe je dat en wat zie je dan? Een Leertraject voor Scholen. ’s Gravenhage: PMPO.
Berg, R van de et al (1997), Transformatie in het Onderwijs. Hoe met Vernieuwingen om te Gaan? Houten: Educatieve Partners.
Berg, R van de and R Vandenberghe (1995), Wegen van betrokkenheid, reflecties op onderwijsvernieuwing, Tilburg: Zwijsen.
Bergen, Th (1996), “Peer coaching, een krachtig middel ter bevordering van de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten?“ Meso, Tijdschrift voor Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement, 16, nr. 89: 2-9.
Bolman, L and T Deal (1993), “Everyday Epistemology in School Leadership: Patterns and Prospects“ in Ph Hallinger, K Leithwood and J Murphy (eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Educational Leadership, New York: Teachers College Press: 21–33.
Bomers, G (1989), De Lerende Organisatie. Breukelen: Nijenrode.
Bouverne, M (1999), “Verwachtingen van jongeren ten aanzien van de school“ in
P Mahieu et al. (1999), Organisatiecultuur van een extraverte School. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: 132–151.
Chapman, J (1996), “A new agenda for a new society“ in K Leithwood (ed.), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 27-59.
Clement, M et al. (1995), “Professionaliteit van docenten en betrokkenheid“ in R van de Berg and R. Vandenberghe, Wegen van Betrokkenheid, Reflecties op OnderwijsVernieuwing, Tilburg: Zwijsen: 189-208.
Commissie Onderwijs 2010 (1997), Optrekkend krijtdamp. De school op weg naar de 21e eeuw. Utrecht: Algemene Onderwijsbond.
Gauthier, A (1995), “Strategische prioriteiten“ in P Senge, Het Vijfde Discipline Praktijkboek. Schoonhoven: Academic Service: 295-297.
Gerards, J and R van den Berg (1995), “Werkbeleving en betrokkenheid van leerkrachten in het basisonderwijs“ in R Berg and R van de Vandenberghe, Wegen van Betrokkenheid, Reflecties op Onderwijsvernieuwing, Tilburg: Zwijsen: 263-280.
Giesbers, J and P Sleegers (1995), “Is de school een lerende organisatie?“ in B P M Creemers et al. (eds): Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: A1305/1-12.
Hallinger, Ph. (ed.), Cognitive Perspectives on Educational Leadership, New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Hofstede, G (1991), Allemaal Anderdenkenden. Omgaan met Cultuuirverschillen. Amsterdam: Contact.
Hooge, E (1998), Ruimte voor Beleid. Autonomievergroting en Beleidsuitvoering door Basisscholen. Amsterdam. Dissertation.
Hoyle, E (1975), “Leadership and Decision-Making in Education“ in M G Hughes (ed.), Administering Education: International Challenge. London: Athlone Press: 30-44.
Hutchins, C (1969), Achieving Excellence, Kansas City: Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory.
Imants, J (1997), “De rol van autonomie in het functioneren van docenten,“ in Th. Bergen (ed.), Perspectieven op de School in Dynamische Ontwikkeling. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: 267- 289.
Karstanje, P (1993), “Ontwikkeling van oplossingsalternatieven en ontwerpen“ in P J J Stijnen et al. (eds.), Transformatie van Schoolorganisties, Alphen aan de Rijn/Heerlen, Samsom: 196-236.
Keuning, D and D Eppink (1987), Management en Organisatie. Theorie en Toepassing. 3rd edition. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese.
Kolb, D A (1993), “The process of experiential learning“ in M Thorpe, R Edwards and A Hanson (eds.), Culture and Processes of Adult Learning. London: Routledge: 138-156.
Kolb, D A (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Krüger, M (1994), Sekseverschillen in Schoolleiderschap. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom.
Lagerweij, N and E Haak (1994), Eerst Goed Kijken. De Dynamiek van Scholen in Ontwikkeling. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
Leithwood, K, P T Begley and J B Cousins (1992), Developing Expert Leadership for Future Schools. London: Falmer Press.
Mahieu, P (1998), “Het jaar 8“ in Braeckmans, De Schoolleider in Beeld; Vijfentwintig Jaar Directie-Opleidingen, Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant: 21-68.
Mintzberg, H (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Morgan, G (1986), Images of Organizations, Beverley Hills: Sage.
Nonaka, I and H Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oosterhuis, P (1995) “Bij de school op visite“ in B P M Creemers et al. (eds.): Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: D1240/1-12.
Osterman, K and R Kottkamp (1993), Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling Through Professional Development. Newbury Park: Corwin Press.
Plomp, Tj (1956), Teaching and Learning for the Future. Enschede: COMMITT.
Schein, E (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace.
Schön, D (1987), Educating the Reflective Practioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Senge, P et al. (1995), Het vijfde Discipline Praktijkboek. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.
Senge, P (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sikkes, R (1998), Het Kwaliteitsoffensief: Het Resultaat Telt. Houten: Educatieve Partners Nederland.
Staessens, K (1991), De Professionele Cultuur van Basisscholen: Elke School Heeft Haar Eigen Verhaal. Leuven: Leuvense Universitaire Pers.
Stoel, W (1998), “Activiteiten van schoolleiders in het basisonderwijs“ in W Van de Grift and L van Tilborg, Onderwijsonderzoek in het Primair Onderwijs: Een Selectie voor de Praktijk. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: 13-142.
Swieringa, J and A Wierdsma (1990), “Op weg naar een lerende organisatie“, Amsterdam: Wolters Noordhoff.
Veld, R in ’t et al. (1996), Toekomsten voor het Funderend Onderwijs, ’s Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
Verbiest, E and H Te Lintelo (1996), “Walking through the learning cycle. Content and didactics of a curriculum for educational management“ in J Kalous and A M L van Wieringen (eds), Improving Educational Management. De Lier: Academisch Boeken Centrum: 117-132.
Verbiest, E (1998), De schoolleider in Beweging. Veranderingen in Visie en Praktijk van het Primair Onderwijs. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom.
Vilsteren, C A van (1984), “De school als professioneel-bureaucratische organisatie“ in B P M Creemers et al. (eds.), Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom: 1510/1-27.
Voogd, J (1991), SAS, Schooldiagnose Basisonderwijs: Analyse-Instrument, ’s Gravenhage: Academisch Boeken Centrum.
Watzlawick, P, J Beavin and D Jackson (1972), De Pragmatische Aspecten van de Menselijke Communicatie. Deventer: Van Loghem Slaterus.
Watzlawick, P (1989), Münchhausens Haren en Wittgensteins Ladder: Uit de Greep van de Werkelijkheid. Deventer: Van Loghem Slaterus.
Wieringen, A M L van (1993), “Strategisch Onderwijsmanagement“ in P J Stijnen et al. (eds.), Transformatie van Schoolorganisaties, Alphen aan den Rijn/Heerlen: Samsom: 33-52.
Zelm, E van (1990), “Organisatieculturen Onder het Vergrootglas: Theorie, Onderzoek en Verandering Vanuit een Interpretatief Perspectief“, M&O, Tijdschrift voor Organisatiekunde en Sociaal Beleid, 44 (6): 558 – 575.