Learning Communities at the Crossroads: Toward the Best Schools We've Ever Had

Abstract

In his response to William Cook and Bruce Joyce, Mr. Schmoker acknowledges common ground but sticks to his position that best way to improve instruction is to develop true learning communities in which teachers together examine and adjust their practices. IN HIS generous response to my February 2004 Kappan article, William Cook agrees that planning, as concept has actually been implemented, has undeniably hurt schools and that, in fact, the situation may be even worse than I described. While we agree on this point, I'm not as sure, as Cook avers, that harm has resulted solely from poor implementation or bastardization of concept; Henry Mintzberg, Tom Peters, and others convince me that notion itself is problem. Cook argues that what I am criticizing is not real but then admits that authentic strategic is emphatically future-oriented; this is very element that makes it vulnerable to all kinds of mischief, that prevents a more timely concern with specific, short-term efforts that respond thoughtfully to emergent opportunities and problems. I would add that I did some difficulty following Cook's argument. This might be because it lacked concrete cases that could help us to see critical distinctions between good and bad strategic planning. If, as he writes, there has been a failure to remain true to original concept, perhaps that is because original concept wasn't clearly defined. As Wittgenstein helped us to see, the meaning of a word is its use. The term as it is actually used and implemented has delayed and prevented improvement in an enormous number of schools and organizations. As such misuse shows no sign of abatement, Cook and I again agree that it is time for a serious critique of planning in its most popular forms. Bruce Joyce's concerns are particularly timely and important. He agrees that elaborate and reforms have failed miserably and in plain sight. And, many of us, he would like to see dream of professional communities of inquiry work out well this time around. He is less sure, however, that learning communities represent something truly superior to other innovations or that we know enough about them to execute them successfully. He cites as cautionary tales disappointing results of several prominent innovations. Therefore, he isn't as ready as I am to abandon a focus on right kinds of workshops or staff development as primary engine for improvement. Our disagreements, I believe, are relative rather than absolute. I share most of Joyce's fears and misgivings about future of communities of inquiry. I often wonder if schools will ever truly embrace an ethos of improvement. But I'm optimistic. As Joyce points out, commitment follows True learning communities, as so many schools and studies now attest, a better chance of promoting than anything we've seen. If enough schools adopt and succeed with them, I believe we'll reach our tipping point. I've seen enough successful learning communities to know that they virtually guarantee success and a sense of competence: moment teachers begin to closely examine their lessons and results of those lessons, instruction improves and competence increases. But clarity precedes competence. The real meaning of collaborative communities must be clearer to those involved than were underlying principles of failed innovations Joyce describes -- or, them, this reform won't survive its collision with both norms and structure of workplace. The Importance of Clarity Rick DuFour was immensely successful, as a principal and superintendent, in implementing learning communities in his high school district in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He recently observed that learning communities are at a critical juncture. …