This article was downloaded by: [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca]

On: 27 February 2014, At: 09:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Leadership & Management:

Formerly School Organisation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Leading system transformation

a
Alma Harris
a
Institute of Education , University of London , London, UK
Published online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Alma Harris (2010) Leading system transformation, School Leadership &
Management: Formerly School Organisation, 30:3, 197-207, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2010.494080

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.494080

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 School Leadership and Management
Vol. 30, No. 3, July 2010, 197
207

Leading system transformation

Alma Harris*

Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK

This article outlines progress made towards education transformation in Wales. It

explores the way in which tri-level reform is guiding system level change in Wales
and looks at the implementation of the School Effectiveness Framework, which is
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

at the heart of the reform process. It describes the way in which professional
learning communities are being deployed across the education system to build the
capacity for change. The article highlights some of the challenges in securing
countrywide reform and concludes that school and system transformation will
only be successful if the leadership capacity for change, at all levels in the system,
is established and sustained.
Keywords: school effectiveness; school improvement; system reform; system
change; system transformation; leadership capacity

Introduction
Several decades of education reform have delivered initiative after initiative but the
anticipated results have not always followed. Reforms come and go, changes are
embedded, implementation is variable and success is short-lived. Many of the
changes intended to improve education outcomes have simply not delivered, ‘leaving
many of the basic features of schooling unaltered’ (Levin 2008, 64). The main
problem is not the predictable resistance to change or the change itself but rather the
model of change that is being repeatedly deployed. This model puts the school at the
centre of the reform process, primarily because several decades of school effective-
ness and school improvement research have reinforced the school as the main unit of
change. As a consequence, many reform programmes, improvement initiatives and
interventions have been preoccupied with school level change and improvement
(Harris and Chrispeels 2008). This is not to suggest that the school should not be a
focus of change
it certainly should be
but rather that it should not be the only
focus of change.
Improving the system one school at a time has its limitations, not only in terms of
the sheer scale of the task but also in terms of the pace of change. If system-wide
improvement is to be more than just rhetoric then we need to look at alternative models
of change that can deliver on such a large scale. Whole system reform will require
collective capacity, not just the individual capacity of single schools; it will require
change at all levels in the system. The history of education reform is populated with
unsuccessful initiatives largely because the same mistakes have been repeated
a lack
of understanding about the implementation process; changes happening too quickly;

*Email: a.harris@ioe.ac.uk
ISSN 1363-2434 print/ISSN 1364-2626 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2010.494080
http://www.informaworld.com
 198 A. Harris

unidirectional changes (often top down); a lack of leadership commitment and no

attempt to build system-wide capacity.
Across the world policy-makers continue to implement reform in ways that
manifestly will not work (Payne 2009). Reforms fail not because they are ill-conceived
or under-resourced but because the wrong model of change is being deployed, one that
places too great a dependence on schools to deliver. Many approaches to education
reform fall into the category of ‘potentially good but never really caught on’ (Levin 2009,
79) because the infrastructure for scaling up has been largely absent and the connection
between the different levels within the system has been minimal. Achieving system-wide
transformation requires all those within the system to communicate and connect, to
drive change forward and to align effort. It demands an alternative model of change, one
that provides both pressure and support, one that provides the press of collaborative
competition along with a relentless focus on improving outcomes (Fullan 2010). In
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

essence, to achieve system-wide improvement requires a return to large-scale reform.

Returning to large-scale reform may seem surprising because this approach has
been tried before with limited success. In the 1960s it failed to make a difference
largely because advocates of reform ignored issues of implementation and did not
address the need to build significant capacity within the system. In the 1990s, there
was another attempt at large-scale reform, this time with a much greater appreciation
of the complexity of the task, and greater attention paid to implementation strategies
as well as a growing sense of urgency about the need for reform (Fullan 2000).
However, despite more sophisticated approaches to large-scale change, the net
outcome was disappointing because of the absence of what Fullan et al. (2009, 9) call
‘change knowledge’. Change knowledge is the understanding and insight about the
process of change and the key drivers that make for successful change in practice.
While the presence of change knowledge does not assure success, it is clear that its
absence makes failure all too predictable.
Change knowledge is predicated upon a clear theory of action linked to capacity
building. Previous attempts at large-scale reform have often underestimated the need
to actively build capacity within the system. So often, capacity building is a missing
component in education reform, even when there is a shared agreement that change
needs to happen. Without deliberately and purposefully creating the capacity to
deliver, even the best designed and well thought through reform is destined to fail.
Meaningful change cannot be delivered using existing structures, existing ideas or
existing capabilities. New capacity has to be forged, nurtured and sustained,
particularly if the changes and the improvements are to be sustained. It is clear
that any sustainable change will require a change in behaviours and practices; it will
necessitate developing new knowledge, skills and competencies. In summary, it
demands new ways of working.

System-wide reform in Wales

In Wales, a major education reform process is underway in an attempt to raise the
education performance of an entire country. This basis for this reform is set out in two
strategic documents: The learning country, and its successor The learning country:
Vision into action (Welsh Assembly Government 2001, 2006). These documents
underline a commitment to using the school effectiveness and improvement research
evidence to secure improved learning and teaching outcomes. This commitment is part
 School Leadership and Management 199

of a wider strategy that is adopting tri-level approaches to the systemic reform of the
education and training system in Wales.
The reform effort underway in Wales is targeted at closing the achievement gap
by significantly improving educational performance (Welsh Assembly Government
2001, 2006). It is clear from international league tables that Wales is not performing
as well as other countries, particularly in maths, science and English. There is a
significant within school variation and the impact of social deprivation has a much
larger impact on education attainment than it should (Egan and Hopkins 2009;
Egan, Harris, and Hopkins 2009). Although there is a strong tradition of school
improvement and effectiveness activity in Wales, it has not always resulted in the
degree of turn required to improve the overall system. Better performance across the
entire system is a priority and there is the political will to achieve just that.
In 2006
2007 the Welsh Assembly Government introduced a national school
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

effectiveness framework (SEF)1 as a way of achieving system level reform and

improved student outcomes for all students in Wales. The SEF is based on robust
research evidence and is intended to drive significant tri-level reform and system level
improvement in Wales over the next few years. Tri-level reform implies that all
schools must be involved in the change process and that the district or local level
must act together along with the state to align itself to the reform process (Fullan
2009). However tri-level reform does not suggest that all levels must be ready before
any change process can commence but rather that whatever the starting point, there
has to be firstly, a focus on the internal development at this level while at the same
time seeking connections with other levels (Fullan 2009). The core idea is to establish
not only greater alignment across the three levels but also greater connectivity which
manifests itself as more two-way ‘interaction, communication and mutual influence’
(Fullan 2009, 5).
Examples of successful tri-level reform in action are not extensive. Ontario is one
exception. Since 2003, a liberal government has been implementing large-scale
change with a great deal of success (Levin 2009). The net results of this approach in
Ontario have been impressive. Ontario’s provincial assessments have improved
substantially and broadly over the last three years. The number of schools with very
low performance has fallen by three quarters, from nearly 20% to less than 5% (Levin
2009, 16). The Ontario government began with a strong belief that schools contained
committed professionals who had enormous skill and knowledge to contribute to
school improvement. Respect for professionals is central to the success of the
approach to change in Ontario, as well as coherence and alignment through national
and local partnership. This is also true of Wales.
A core component of the reform process in Wales is the recognition that large-scale
change can only occur if all professionals work collaboratively and in partnership. The
Ontario strategy, like that in Wales, is also deliberately building capacity not only
across all schools but also at the local education authority level and with other
agencies. If SEF is not to be just another policy document, there has to be a robust
model of implementation, a way to powerfully connect practice and policy. There has
to be a way of connecting different levels of the system with purpose and integrity, there
has to be a way of aligning core priorities and a way of translating policy into the reality
of classroom practice. If the chief purpose of SEF is to improve learning outcomes for
all young people in Wales in all settings (Harris 2008), there has to be some means of
 200 A. Harris

connecting educators to that moral purpose. There has to be a mechanism which

creates the social glue so that change across the entire system can take place.
Whole system reform involves all schools in the system getting better and it
focuses primarily on closing the gap between the high and low performers (Fullan
2010). There are relatively few examples of countrywide system level reform in
action; therefore the reform process in Wales is potentially groundbreaking. To
achieve countrywide change will require not just changing those schools or teachers
that are not doing so well but changing all schools by changing the context within
which these schools are operating. As Fullan (2010, 30) notes, ‘the whole system is
implicated’
and indeed, in Wales, the whole system is responsible for the change.
To secure countrywide change will necessitate the mobilising of collective energy
to engage in joint reform (Fullan 2010, 31). Effort needs to be placed on deliberately
and purposefully building system-wide capacity in order to unleash massive energy
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

across the entire system. To make countrywide reform more than an aspiration
requires collective capacity building at national, local and school levels. As Darling
Hammond (2010, 270) notes it is important to ‘shift from enforcing procedures to
building capacity and from managing compliance to managing improvement’. In
Wales the system is at the point of managing improvement, it is at a vital tipping
point in building the collective capacity for change.

Building collective capacity

One of the major limitations of a model of change predicated upon school
improvement is that it pays more attention to individual rather than collective
capacity building. Even the most successful improvements are difficult to share
between schools, as so often the change is heavily context specific, so capacity is
contained and restricted at the single school level. Improving learning and teaching on
a system-wide stage requires co-construction and co-production of new knowledge
through the joint efforts of many people working together in a disciplined and focused
way. The central point here is that attention needs to be paid to creating purposeful and
disciplined collaboration that is actively focused upon improving learning and
teaching (Hansen 2009). There needs to be a focus on meaningful collaboration but
with clear accountability and mutual responsibility.
Hargreaves (1997) warns about the dangers of contrived collegiality and points
towards the limitations of empty engagement and shallow forms of collaboration.
Collaboration is not an end in itself but a means to an end. System-wide reform
based upon collaboration within, between and across schools and local education
authorities offers an infrastructure for change in Wales. It provides a basis for
capacity building where schools, local authorities, other agencies and government
can work together in new ways. The glue that binds system-wide reform and makes it
work together has three main components; ‘constant communication across all
levels; precision-based capacity building and problem solving strategies, and a careful
pursuit of recruitment of leaders who are selected and developed to serve the core
goals’ (Fullan 2010, 50). The point to reiterate here is that system-wide reform is not
a programme or a set of initiatives but rather a set of strongly focused practices and
norms. These norms are based upon a coherent approach to change and a collective
capacity building orientation. As Grubb (2009, 234) notes:
 School Leadership and Management 201

High performing districts that have developed a balance between centralised and
decentralised or school control
a district version of distributed leadership, with a role
for schools to play in district decision making . . . They also developed processes for
shared learning among schools.

In Wales, collective capacity is being built within the system in a variety of ways
but one strand of the work is focusing on what Sharrat and Fullan (2009, 48) call
‘interdependent practice’. This is where professionals collaborate within schools and
across local authorities with the prime and only purpose of transforming learning
and teaching. Interdependent practice is about ‘moving from ‘doer to enabler’
wherever possible, not only at the local level but also in schools (Sharrat and Fullan
2009, 46). Interdependence practice has been shown to be a particularly important
driver for improvement in urban and challenging contexts. Whatever else the research
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

indicates, it is now absolutely clear that professionals working together collabora-

tively, with an absolute focus on improving learning outcomes, is what matters most,
if system reform is to be ‘realisable’ (Sharrat and Fullan 2009).
Interdependent practice is being nurtured and developed in Wales through a
model of professional learning communities (PLC) within, between and across
schools/local authorities (Harris and Jones 2010). The core idea is to build collective
capacity within the system through professionals working together in a disciplined
way with the main aim of generating new knowledge and new practices. The PLC
model is one way of creating collective capacity through deep collaboration and
mutual enquiry. But PLCs are not just random groupings or networks. Evidence
shows that the configuration of PLCs matters greatly, it also highlights the
limitations and dangers of ‘empty networks’ (Katz and Earl 2010). If too loosely
configured or insufficiently focused on learning and teaching, professional learning
communities will not make a difference. To be most effective, PLCs need to focus on
the ‘real work’ of improving learning and teaching (Harris and Jones 2010).
Improvement through professional learning communities means addressing the hard
questions about classroom practice and actively seeking to change learning
outcomes. At best, PLCs should be ‘cultures for learning’ where professionals learn
together (Fullan 2009, 12).
Within Wales, PLCs are already proving to be a powerful catalyst for change and
capacity building (Harris and Jones 2010). This is for two main reasons; firstly
knowledge about effective practice is becoming more widely available, accessible and
replicable. Secondly, working together in this way generates a collective commitment
among professionals to get things done; it signals collective accountability as well as
collective responsibility for new knowledge and new professional practice. The model
of professional learning communities being implemented in Wales is characterised by
joint decision-making, a clear sense of purpose and collaborative enquiry. It is based
on the simple but powerful idea that in order to meet learner needs, there must be
opportunities for professionals to innovate, develop and learn together (Harris and
Jones 2010). The evidence supporting this position is pretty unequivocal. Research
findings show that professional learning communities have the potential to improve
achievement and raise performance (Goldenberg 2004; Stoll and Seashore Louis
2007; Verscio et al. 2008; Whitehurst 2002; Saunders et al. 2009). They are powerful
vehicles for changing professional practice and improving student learning outcomes
(DuFour and Eaker 1998). Teachers who are part of a professional learning
 202 A. Harris

community tend to be more effective in the classroom and achieve better student
outcomes (Huffman and Jacobson 2003; Lewis and Andrews 2004).
The current work around PLCs in Wales is premised upon a number of key
principles. Firstly, it is premised on a view that system-wide change is only possible
through tri-level collaboration and networking. Secondly, there is a central and non-
negotiable focus on pedagogical improvement and improving learner outcomes.
Thirdly, the model uses action enquiry approaches, as a driver for change in
classroom practice. Theoretically, the PLC model also draws heavily upon the theory
of change implicit in Wenger’s (2002) notion of communities of practice. Within such
communities practice is developed and refined through the collaboration of ‘groups
of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who
deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder 2002). As Fullan (2010, 36) has noted ‘within school
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

collaboration, when it is focused, produces powerful results on an ongoing basis’.

At the heart of PLCs is an absolute commitment to improving the learning of
each student. PLCs are essentially collaborative teams whose members work
interdependently to improve learner outcomes. As Kofman and Senge (1995, 44)
conclude: ‘the rationale for building a learning organisation revolves around the
premise that such organisations will produce dramatically improved results’. The
central point here is that the PLCs model being implemented in Wales has strong
results orientation. The central ambition is to improve learner outcomes and to raise
performance across all schools in Wales but inevitably, this is not without some
challenges.

Challenges and implications for leadership

To secure system-wide reform in Wales cannot be achieved one teacher, or one
school, or indeed, one PLC at a time. The stakes are too high and the scale of the
task is too great. Conversely, countrywide reform will not be achieved through a
fragmented or piecemeal reform process that will drain the system of energy, time
and resource. There needs to be a ‘concerted effort to ensure that reform is
systematic, self-sustaining and unstoppable’ (Sharrat and Fullan 2009, 92). This
requires leadership of learning in every school, in every local education authority and
in every classroom. It requires a collective commitment to move the system forward
through leading the improvement of learning and teaching.
If the quality of an education system cannot outperform the quality of its
teachers then the focus for leadership has to be on generating better professional
practice (McKinsey 2007). At best, PLCs have the potential to disturb the status quo,
to create the possibility of knowledge creation and to stimulate change in the daily
work of professionals, wherever they are located in the system. Having the right
policy document may be necessary but it will be insufficient unless there is a clear
means of translating policy into practice. ‘Put simply there is no way to make whole
system reform a reality without the entire teaching profession and its leaders’ (Fullan
2010, 96). But professional learning communities offer just one lever for system level
change; there are other approaches. There is no suggestion that professional learning
communities are a ‘silver bullet’ for successful system level reform, they are certainly
not a panacea.
 School Leadership and Management 203

Experience to date has shown that embedding professional learning communities

is far from straightforward or easy (Harris and Jones 2010). Firstly, there are some
structural and cultural challenges. School structures, particularly secondary schools
with strong subject boundaries, can resist efforts to build professional learning
communities. For some schools, this way of working is not welcomed because the
professional divisions and subject demarcations are simply too strong. In other
schools, the culture is one that is not conducive to change; there is professional
mistrust which militates against collaboration. Secondly, the external environment is
turbulent and presents a constant challenge and disruption for schools and local
authorities. In the face of unpredictable change, it is difficult to think about
embedding new approaches. Competing demands and priorities can prove to be a
major distraction and this will be an ongoing tension as the PLC work continues.
Thirdly, time is an issue, or more accurately the lack of it. Time is a significant
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

issue for teachers who wish to work together collegially, and it has been cited as both
a barrier (i.e., too little time) and a supportive factor by those engaging in
professional learning communities. Finally, as highlighted already, engaging others
in change requires will, skill but ultimately persistence as there will be periods where
performance may be flat and where progress may be slow. The main challenge then is
one of maintaining focus over time; keeping going despite setbacks and disappoint-
ments; to be resilient to criticism; and not to be discouraged when progress is slow
(Levin 2009). The central challenge is to maintain focus despite distractions or
setbacks; this is essentially the leadership challenge.
There is a very good reason why examples of successful tri-level reform tend to be
thin on the ground: the sheer scale of the change is difficult to achieve and there are
elements within the system that can undermine progress. System-wide reform in
Wales will require a high degree of alignment across the national, local and school
levels. Inevitably, at all three levels powerful boundaries and fault lines exist. These
can present considerable challenges to the process of implementation. Without
question, vested interest will play its part. For some, keeping things exactly as they
are is the central and only objective. Such resistance can be a powerful distracting
force that can undermine efforts to move the system forward, if it is allowed to. Issues
of power and control tend to be played out centre stage in the process of large-scale
reform and can generate positive and negative responses. Self-interest and survival
are powerful motivators that have the potential to dismantle and derail any reform
process, not because the change is necessarily viewed as a bad thing but rather
because it is seen as a potential threat to status or position.
Successful system level reform is also heavily dependent upon the competence
and capability of different parts of the system to respond to the changes required and
to connect together. Within any system, schools and local authorities will vary in
their ability and capability to forge links and to create alignment. This is why the idea
of ‘system leadership’ is particularly important in securing countrywide reform
(Higham, Hopkins, and Matthews 2009). ‘To change organisations and systems will
require leaders to get experience in linking other parts of the system. These leaders in
turn must develop other leaders with similar characteristics’ (Fullan 2004, 7). The
central idea here is that to achieve system-wide reform will require a particular type
of leadership; one that brokers, resources, supports, challenges and makes connec-
tions across the system. It implies making:
 204 A. Harris

. . . more of our most successful leaders by encouraging and enabling them to: identify
and transfer best practice; reduce the risk of innovation in other school; and lead
partnerships that improve and diversify educational pathways for students within and
across localities. (Highham, Hopkins, and Matthews 2009, 19)

The ability to transfer new knowledge and practice across the system, at scale, is
at the heart of education transformation in Wales. The challenge is to achieve this in
an authentic way. System leadership offers a means of transferring intelligence and
innovation across the system and where system leaders work most effectively, they
can make a significant contribution (Fullan 2004; Highham, Hopkins, and Matthews
2009). Achieving system level reform will require leadership on a different scale and
of a different order than before. It will require leaders who can support the collective
capacity building at national, local and school levels. It will require leaders who are
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

able to work within, between and across schools and local authorities. Essentially,
there will need to be a critical mass of leaders who have change knowledge but also
are able to develop leadership in others on an ongoing basis.
Professional learning communities are unlikely to thrive and survive without
strong leadership that supports innovation but also facilitates widely distributed
leadership (Harris 2009). The whole point of a professional learning community is
that the ‘sum is greater than the parts’ and that by distributing and sharing
leadership more widely, the opportunities for releasing learning capacity within
schools and across the system is maximised (Harris 2008, 13). If professional
learning communities are to be an effective catalyst to create this infrastructure they
must be led effectively. They will need strong internal and external leadership. The
central point is that professional learning communities need to be actively supported
and facilitated if they are to be successful. System leaders have a role to play in
providing the challenge and support for PLCs as they develop, embed and extend
their work with schools and local education authorities across Wales.
It is clear that evidence about the impact of professional learning communities
within system level reform is still accumulating; yet if we believe just some of the
evidence pertaining to the benefits of PLCs there is a compelling case for their
inclusion in system-wide change. However by implementing professional learning
communities, it is very clear that ‘we are acting with knowledge while doubting what
we know’ (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006, 174). The model may prove to be imperfect but
the imperative towards immediate action is just too strong. System level change can
only be achieved by changing the way people connect, communicate and collaborate.
To be successful, leaders at the school and local authority levels need to create the
structural and cultural conditions where professional learning communities can
thrive, survive and excel. Without this form of leadership, professional learning
communities, at best, will enhance the professional skills of the teachers but at worst,
will have little impact across the system and will lose momentum quickly. They will
then be returned to the recycle bin of education reform as another fad or gimmick
that did not work this time.
Leadership at all levels of the system is required if tri-level form is to become a
reality. This leadership has to be resolute, it has to build allegiances, and it has to
generate professional confidence and power across the entire system. For the whole
system to be devoted to innovation and dedicated to improving the quality of
learning and teaching, it has to harness the collective capacity of all leaders wherever
 School Leadership and Management 205

they reside. There has to be both vertical and lateral leadership that supports the
system as it moves through the various stages of change. This leadership has to be
self-sustaining but also self-renewing in order to keep change moving in the right
direction. To change an entire system undoubtedly requires leadership of a different
nature, order and scale. Collins (2001) talks about the importance of leadership
that ‘builds enduring greatness’ and highlights the importance of developing
leadership at all levels in the system in order to be successful. System level change
in Wales is unlikely to happen without a critical mass of leaders at the school, local
and government levels with a shared belief that change is possible and adherence to
the same model of implementation.
As the School Effectiveness Framework moves into its next phase, building
strong professional communities within, between and across schools/local authorities
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

will be just one strand of its implementation. System-wide change will only happen if
there are multiple drivers, multiple partnerships, multiple teams and many
individuals working together in new ways to create a new culture. Professional
learning communities are part of the changing landscape of system-wide reform in
Wales. It is hoped that as they are scaled up, professional learning communities will
have the potential to secure significant and sustained improvement for all young
people in Wales, irrespective of their context or background. For this alone, they are
worth pursuing.

Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge and thank firstly, the school effectiveness team within DCELLS
at the Welsh Assembly Government for their ongoing support but also for permission to
publish this article; secondly, all the schools, local authorities and consortia within Wales for
their support and continued contribution. Thirdly, thanks to my academic colleagues for their
insights and feedback and lastly, particular thanks to Michelle Jones for her commitment to
the PLC work in Wales, her drive and enthusiasm has made it happen.

Note
1. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/schooleffectivenessfra
mework/?langen.

Notes on contributor
Alma Harris is pro-director (leadership) at the Institute of Education, University of London.
She is currently working for the Welsh Assembly Government as a senior policy adviser but is
writing here in an independent capacity.

References
Argyris, C. 1992. On organizational learning. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Collins, J. 2001. Good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Darling Hammond, L. 1996. The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development.
Educational Leadership 53, no. 6: 4
10.
DuFour, R., and R. Eaker. 1998. Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
 206 A. Harris

Egan, D., A. Harris, and D. Hopkins. 2009. Implementing the School Effectiveness
Framework. Unpublished paper for the Welsh Assembly Government.
Egan, D., and D. Hopkins. 2009. Developing system leadership capacity in the School
Effectiveness Framework. Unpublished paper for the Welsh Assembly Government.
Fullan, M. 2000. Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In
The governance of curriculum, ed. R.F. Elmore and S.H. Fuhrman, 186
202. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. 2004. Systems thinkers in action: Moving beyond the standards plateau.
Nottingham: Innovation Unit.
Fullan, M. 2009. The challenge of change. Ontario, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. 2010. All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Ontario, CA:
Corwin Press.
Goldenberg, C. 2004. Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and
learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grubb, N. 2009. The money myth: School resources, outcomes, and equity. New York: Russell
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014

Sage Foundation.
Hansen, M. 2009. Collaboration; How leaders avoid traps, create unity and reap results. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Press.
Hargreaves, A. 1997. Cultures of teaching and educational change. In The international
handbook of teachers and teaching, ed. B. Biddle, T. Good, and I.F. Goodson, 1297
319.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Harris, A. 2008. Distributed leadership in schools: Developing the leaders of tomorrow. London:
Routledge.
Harris, A., ed. 2009. Distributed school leadership. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Harris, A., and J. Chrispeels, eds. 2008. International perspectives on school improvement.
London: Routledge.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2010. Leading learning for school effectiveness. Improving Schools,
Summer.
Highham, R., D. Hopkins, and P. Matthews. 2009. System leadership in practice. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Hord, S.M. 1997. Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Katz, S., and L. Earl. 2010. Learning about networked learning communities. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement 21, no. 1: 27
53.
Kofman, F., and P.M. Senge. 1995. Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organisations. In Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace, ed.
S. Chawla and J. Renesch, 14
43. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Levin, B. 2009. How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Lewis, M., and D. Andrews. 2004. Building sustainable futures: Emerging understandings of
the significant contribution of the professional learning community. Improving Schools 7,
no. 2: 129
50.
McKinsey. 2007. How the best performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey
and Company.
Payne, C. 2009. So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Pfeffer, J., and R.I. Sutton. 2006. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense: Profiting
from evidence-based management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Saunders, W., and C. Goldenberg. 2005. The contribution of settings to school improvement
and school change. In Culture and context in human behaviour change: Theory, research and
applications, ed. C.R. O’Donnell and L.A. Yamauchi, 127
50. New York: Peter Lang.
Saunders, W., C. Goldenberg, and R. Gallimore. 2009. Increasing achievement by focusing
grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective quasi-experimental study
of Title 1 schools. American Education Research Journal 46, no. 4: 1006
33.
Sharrat, L., and M. Fullan. 2009. Realization: The change imperative for deepening district wide
reform. Ontario, CA: Corwin Press.
Stoll, L., and K. Seashore Louis, eds. 2007. Professional learning communities. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
 School Leadership and Management 207

Verscio, V., D. Ross, and A. Adams. 2008. A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education 24, no. 1: 80
91.
Welsh Assembly Government. 2001. The learning country. Cardiff: Author.
Welsh Assembly Government. 2006. The learning country: Vision into action. Cardiff: Author.
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7, no. 2:
225
46.
Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitehurst, G.J. 2002. Research on teacher preparation and professional development. Paper
presented at the White House Conference, March, in Washington, DC.
Downloaded by [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca] at 09:27 27 February 2014