Professional Learning Communities of School Leaders Within Inter-School Networks: Opportunities and Conditions for Sustainable Professionalization Fostering School Development

• In Event: Creating Collaborative Structures Within and Between Schools as a Basis for School Development

Abstract

Given the challenging and complex task of school leaders to ensure quality education (Tan, 2018; Trust et al., 2018), peer learning and getting supportive feedback from peers is important for both professional and school development (Vekeman et al., 2022). Structural inter-school networks are relevant in the context of collective learning (Brown & Flood, 2020; Harris & Jones, 2021; Levin et al., 2020). Initiating quality partnerships between school leaders in a sustainable way is not evident (Azorín et al., 2020; Harris & Jones, 2021).

Using a mixed-methods approach, we examined professional learning communities (PLCs) as a form of formal collective learning developed within existing inter-school networks during a two-year professional development trajectory (PPT). We examined the (learning) outcomes as experienced by the participants and which variables affect the sustainable long-term development of these PLCs as part of the inter-school networks. Data collection was based on online surveys and in-depth interviews.

Results indicate that the quality of collective learning, as operationalized by discussing and developing concrete school policy and action plans cooperatively, increased significantly during the two-year trajectory. Most explanatory for further sustainability of the PLC as a professional network for school leaders is the organization and didactic approach of the PLC during the PT and the approach used by the process coach.

In this research, we use the structure of and approach within a PLC as means to encourage peer learning between school leaders and from there to foster a culture of collaboration. We developed these PLCs in the context of existing groups of schools (In Flanders referred to as school communities). This has as a consequence that the initial situation and the facilitating role of these inter-school network as experienced by the participants can influence further choices regarding future continuation and approach in the PLCs. At the end of the professional development trajectory (PPT) we notice clear differences in how the continuation of a PLC is ensured, more specifically in terms of the organization and approach as well as expected commitment and shared leadership.

In groups of schools where the superintendent as leader of the inter-school network played a facilitating role before and (participated) during the PPT, in this role also supporting the role of a process coach needed to develop the PLC, there is a bigger chance that this role will be continued. In the PLCs where this facilitating role of the superintendent was deliberately absent, the school leaders kept their autonomous status.

Regarding the choice of an (external) process coach, the experience with one's process coaching during the PPT, the expertise in the field of process coaching among PLC participants, the availability of process coaches from the educational advisory service, and financial resources are taken into consideration. Altogether it is recommended that the participating school leaders and superintendents make conscious and well-founded choices related to installing the role of a process coach for the sake of the quality of collaborative learning and invest in sustainable collective learning.

Further longitudinal research into the sustainability of PLCs within inter-school networks and the quality of process coaches is recommended.

Authors

• Els Tanghe, Antwerp University

• Wouter Schelfhout, University of Antwerp

• Tom Smits, University of Antwerp