JUDITH LITTLE and WIEL VEUGELERS

BIG CHANGE QUESTION PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND SCHOOL-NETWORK TIES: PROSPECTS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT1

JUDITH LITTLE 1. Network Initiatives and the Promise of Improvement Initiatives to promote school-to-school networks are rooted in the assumption that cooperation among schools, driven by a shared interest in learning, can yield improvements at multiple levels, thus helping to promote systemwide change. Research provides some evidence that networks may help individuals and schools accomplish what they cannot accomplish on their own. They expand the pool of ideas, materials and assistance on which individual schools can draw; they engage participants in mutual problem-solving; and they inspire and recognize accomplishment. Yet networks might also reasonably be seen as competing with other settings (schools, classrooms, other personal and professional spaces) for individuals’ time, labor, interest and emotional commitments. How, exactly, is the promise of improvement and systemwide reform realized through participation in networks? To tackle that question, this paper points attention directly to the conditions, processes and content of professional learning. As others have noted, research on ‘‘networks’’ actually spans arrangements of quite different sorts: networks of schools, networks associated with specific programs of professional development, and networks of individuals who share interests of some sort.2 To what extent research on one kind of network supplies guidance for others remains unclear. At its best, the research helps to identify conditions conducive to professional learning in various kinds of networks and to suggest network effects on school-level improvements. However, the available research also reveals substantial variation in the ability of networks to influence teacher practice or build schools’ organizational capacity for improvement. Further, there is relatively little research that takes up the broader question of how networks enhance the production and/or flow of useful knowledge. Nor is there much research that delves deeply into the nature of network activity and into the question of precisely how such activity achieves its effect on thinking and practice beyond the network itself. Journal of Educational Change (2005) 6: 277–291 DOI 10.1007/s10833-005-8254-1

Ó Springer 2005

278

JUDITH LITTLE

In recently completed case studies of workplace professional community and professional development in comprehensive high schools, my colleagues and I found that staff in each of the schools had formed a relationship with external networks, but the nature, strength and significance of the network ties varied substantially (Little, Horn & Bartlett, 2000; Horn, 2005; Little, 2003). As our analysis unfolded, we developed a growing appreciation for the significance of external ties in helping us understand the nature of improvement-related activity in each of the schools. Further, a school’s or group’s capacity to exploit the resources of external (network) participation seemed clearly contingent on internal leadership and professional community. We came to see (a) the ways in which the nature and locus of professional community within each school positioned it to contribute to and benefit from professional learning in networks in particular ways (and not others); and, as well, (b) the specific ways in which the network affiliations helped define and delimit participants’ views of ‘‘reform’’ and shape their professional learning opportunities. Despite evidence of the potential importance of network participation, the field knows little as yet about the interaction between a network-based professional community and the localized professional communities rooted in the daily lives of schools. We are only beginning to learn what exactly transpires in such interactions that constitutes resources for professional learning and school improvement. With few exceptions, research on professional learning communities takes the school or the within-school group (department, team, grade) as a meaningful unit of analysis. Similarly, research on networks concerns itself with the network as an entity, with participants from a particular school standing as a kind of proxy for the school itself. Yet these case boundaries, so convenient for research, do not correspond to the places and pathways traversed by the individuals and groups we study. Nor do they allow us to capture precisely the kind of boundary-spanning work that individuals and groups do when they move from one institutional space to another. 2. Investigating Professional Learning in and Through Network Ties We need to do more to investigate how school and network environments supply resources for professional learning and school improvement. First, the particular nature of school-network relationships and the variations in those relationships are likely to matter

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

279

with regard to outcomes we care about; this is not to argue for one definition of the ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘effective’’ network, but to suggest that we analyze the variations and how they position educators and schools for improvement in particular ways. Second, to understand how participants actually construct opportunities for professional learning and resources for school improvement through their participation in networks, we could productively join the largely separate bodies of research on within-school community and research on networks, and could make more use than we currently do of the emerging literature on workplace practice and workplace learning in fields outside education.3 The growing popularity of school-to-school networks reflects three central working assumptions about the generative power of schoolnetwork relationships. Taken together, these assumptions provide a useful starting point for investigations of professional learning in and through network participation. (1) A first assumption is that the school is well positioned, or could become well positioned, to exploit the resources of a network for purposes of school improvement. This assumption speaks to the nature of existing professional relationships in the school, the quality of leadership, the stability and capacity of staff, the LEA context, and social and political relations with community – that is, to conditions that make for fertile ground in the school. Those conditions may range from minimal threshold to robust, with consequences for productive participation in a network. (2) A second assumption is that the network has resources, or could come to have resources, of importance to the school – resources in the form of ideas, materials, advice or encouragement that justify the transactional and opportunity costs of participating. (3) The third assumption is that there are interactions, activities, and processes by which the ‘‘stuff’’ of network interaction comes into the school – and vice versa. This is sometimes cast as a problem of ‘‘transfer,’’ but as others have argued (e.g., Eraut, 2000; Knight, 2002; Fielding et al., 2005), that term proves too limited as a way of understanding the nature of learning and the cognitive and social entailments of changing practice that are of interest here. The relations between school and network entail the work of boundary spanning, together with an assumption that the relationships are in some manner reciprocal (participants both give and take), reflexive (both the school and the network change

280

JUDITH LITTLE

over time), and synergetic (both the school and the network get stronger over time through their contributions to one another; they are more than the sum of their parts). Presumably, the school-network relationship succeeds to the extent those assumptions are met, although no network could conceivably supply resources to satisfy all purposes, interests and needs. Within this problem space, one can pose several categories of questions that are familiar but also necessarily complicated. Conditions conducive to learning in schools and networks: What goes on in each location – school or network – that supplies resources for professional learning and school improvement? This is a foundational or threshold question about organization and/or group culture, resources, practices and leadership. What are the practices, dispositions, relationships, and structures inside schools that make it possible for a whole school to benefit from the network participation of some individuals? What are the practices, dispositions, relationships, and structures of networks that enable people in these outof-school settings to dig deeply into evidence of teaching and learning that comes from inside schools and classrooms? Spanning the worlds of school and network. What is the nature of boundary-spanning activity and who are the participants? This is a question about the purpose and scope of particular network relationships and particularly about the ‘‘mechanisms’’ or processes by which the boundary work gets done, and by which schools and networks influence each other over time. One might consider a set of activities, resources and relationships that constitute ‘‘boundary-spanning.’’ Advocates for networks anticipate that the participation of some can influence the many, yet there is evidence that schools vary with regard to how the network participants are viewed in the home school.4 In our own study of a whole-school restructuring initiative that included school-to-school networking, teachers in many schools, especially secondary schools, viewed the reform leaders as a ‘‘separate’’ group in the school (Little & Dorph, 1998). How does the nature of the boundary-spanning interaction affect the outcomes we care about, ranging from teacher retention to pupil achievement? Evidence of learning. What do we take to be evidence of learning at each of the levels of interest (pupil, teacher, school, network, system)? This is fundamentally a question regarding the nature and extent of influence, about the causal inferences we might make, and the conceptual and methodological challenges entailed in that work. How do

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

281

we make attributions about that learning, especially attributions regarding the contribution of the school-network relationship? For example, if we think network participation yields new ways of thinking about, talking about and enacting classroom instruction, how would we account for that? As Jean Lave has observed: ‘‘Learning is an integral aspect of activity. That learning occurs is not problematic. . .What is learned is always complexly problematic’’ (1996, p. 8). For both practical and conceptual reasons, it makes sense to shift focus from organizational forms and sites to the resources for and trajectories of learning. Unpacking the ‘‘what’’ of learning is complicated in at least three ways. First, individuals arrive at networks via different paths, not always of their own devising; regardless of the espoused purposes of formal networks, the felt motivations and purposes of the participants – and thus what they attend to – will vary more widely. Second, participants bring their existing cognitive, social and material resources to network activity; what is and might be learned in networking draws upon prior learning and the pool of resources thus collectively available. Third, unpacking learning is further complicated by the multi-faceted nature of the ‘‘what.’’ ‘‘What is learned’’ may operate at different levels of explicitness and awareness (Eraut, 2000), and may implicate one or more of several levels of relevant professional knowledge and practice (Knight, 2002). Thus, in this regard, the task of finding ‘‘what is learned’’ and how it matters to individuals, schools and the networks themselves goes beyond the task of following the implementation of a particular innovation, although it may entail that as well. The ‘‘footprints into practice’’ problem proves both important and challenging. 3. Professional Learning and Systemic Change Of course, the very formation of networks may be seen as constituting system change; from an institutional perspective networks are new organizational actors within the larger organizational field. They may alter the relations within and among the familiar entities – schools, LEAs, reform organizations, universities – and between those entities and government, the media, and the private sector. They may also transform the nature of educational practice and the relations among those who participate in it: those who teach, learn, administer and govern. Tracing the development and significance of

282

JUDITH LITTLE

networks and networking may tell us something important about systemic, institutional shifts in education (for a parallel case in the field of health care, see Scott et al., 2000). This paper argues for beginning that work by focusing closely on the nature and conditions of professional learning – on how knowledge central to the work of education is created, deepened, and shared (or not) through networks and networking. Three broad questions about the learning conditions in schools and networks, the nature of network relationships, and evidence of learning and change converge in an effort to construct an explanatory model of school-network relationships and their influence on school improvement. Such a model in turn provides one basis on which we might begin to gauge the nature and extent of systemic change. Notes 1

This paper is adapted from J.W. Little (2005), Nodes And Nets: Investigating Resources For Professional Learning in Schools And Networks, a paper prepared for the National College for School Leadership. Nottingham, England. 2 For a comprehensive review, see Kerr et al. (2003); for studies focused on schoolto-school networks, see Allen, Glickman & Hensley (1999); Goodlad (1994); Kahne et al. (2001); Lieberman & McLaughlin (1992); Lieberman & Grolnick (1996); Miller (2001); Muncey & McQuillan (1996); Wohlstetter et al. (2003). 3 For examples of work along the proposed lines, see Fielding et al. (2005); Little (2003); Stoll (2004). 4 In this regard, Granovetter’s (1973) arguments regarding the ‘‘strength of weak ties’’ force us to consider how combinations of weak and strong ties might help us to understand the place of networks and networking in improvement-oriented practice. Strong ties characterized by interpersonal trust, high levels of communication and mutual support are likely to influence whether and how participants attempt change; weak ties are more likely to maximize information flow and access to information, ideas, material, and other groups. In this view, ‘‘weak’’ ties are not necessarily something to be remedied; rather, weak and strong ties provide different kinds of resources for individuals, groups and organizations.

References Allen, L., Glickman, C. & Hensley, F. (1999). The league of professional schools: A decade of school-based renewal. In J. Block, S. Everson & T. Guskey (eds), Comprehensive School Reform: A Program Perspective (pp. 165–177). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 113–136.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

283

Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., Horne, M., Robinson, C. & Thorp, J. (2005). Factors Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice (DfES Research Report 615). Brighton, UK: University of Sussex and Demos. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360–1380. Horn, I.S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition & Instruction, 23(2), 207–236. Kahne, J., O’Brien, J., Brown, A. & Quinn, T. (2001). Leverage, social capital and school improvement: The case of a school network and a comprehensive community initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(4), 429–461. Kerr, D., Aiston, S., White, K., Holland, M. & Grayson, H. (2003). Review of Networked Learning Communities: Literature Review. Berkshire, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research. Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: learning as practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(3), 229–241. Lave, J. (1996)). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (eds), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieberman, A. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan 73(9), 673–677. Lieberman, A. & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record 98(1), 7–45. Little, J.W. (2003). Professional community and the problem of high school reform. International Journal of Educational Research 37(8), 693–714. Little, J.W. & Dorph, R. (1998). Lessons about Comprehensive School Reform: California’s School Restructuring Demonstration Program. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. Little, J.W., Horn, I.S. & Bartlett, L. (2000). Teacher Learning, Professional Community, and Accountability in the Context of High School Reform. Report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education and the Spencer Foundation. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. Miller, L. (2001). School-university partnerships as a venue for professional development. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (eds), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters New York: Teachers College Press. Muncey, D.E. & McQuillan, P.J. (1996). Reform and Resistance in Schools and Classrooms: An Ethnographic View of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, W.R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P.J. & Caronna, C.A. (2000). Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stoll, L. (2004). Networked Learning Communities and Professional Learning Communities. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Communities Seminar, San Diego, CA, April 2004. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C.L., Chau, D. & Polhemus, J. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy 17(4), 399–430.

284

WIEL VEUGELERS

JUDITH LITTLE

Graduate School of Education MC 1670 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1670, USA E-mail: [email protected] DOI 10.1007/s10833-005-8253-2

WIEL VEUGELERS

NETWORKS OF TEACHERS OR TEACHERS CAUGHT IN NETWORKS? Networks of schools are seen as important means for educational change. More and more, implementation of educational change is not successful. Teachers are seen by policy and change agents as unwilling to enhance educational practices, as lacking the capacities for it and as protecting their autonomy in their own classroom. Getting teachers involved in educational change seems as difficult as getting students involved in their education. To get students more involved in their own learning many scholars argue for more authentic learning, for valuing students’ voice, for more informal ways of learning and for a teacher as helper instead of instructor or even coach. These fairly romantic ideas about student learning, like in different forms of ‘progressive education’, are a rather permanent line in educational debate and in educational practices. Still, they remain mostly at the margins of the educational system. These student-centered ideas do have a strong attraction to teachers, scholars and politicians, and influence many other educational traditions like problem-based learning and self-regulated learning. The more romantic ideas about student activities are in these more mainstream discourses mixed with more curriculumoriented and outcome-based ideas. It’s not surprising that these mixed methods are accused by the purists as using the student only as a means, not as an end in itself. The mixed methods often become

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

285

integrated in the system and again arouse new movements of studentoriented learning. The same show starts all over again. We started by staying that getting teachers involved in educational change looks similar to getting students involved. Are we seeing similar movements in getting teachers involved? Are there similar ways of accommodating resistance and empowerment? And how networks are part of this process of getting teachers involved in educational change? Traditional top–down ways of implementing educational change often don’t succeed in bringing about fundamental changes, particularly changes in school culture and in teaching and learning processes (Fullan, 2003). It seems difficult to move beyond the changes in formal structures and realise changes in the concrete attitudes and behaviour of principals, teachers and students. It seems that tradition, autonomy and the restricted professionalism of principals and teachers are resistant to many initiatives for educational change (Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2003). Recent educational research and theorizing show many concepts that reflect initiatives to take teachers and principals more seriously, such as teachers’ voice, empowerment of teachers and tacit knowledge. The concept of teacher professionalism is broadened, for example, by the reflective practitioner and action research. Teachers are seen as partners in educational change. But addressing individual teachers is not enough; teachers are part of a school team. Together they constitute education. Compared to their students, teachers are more linked in their school. Teacher learning has to therefore be seen as more embedded in social practices. Maybe the fact that teachers do their work with students separate from each other has reduced the social view of teachers’ learning. Professional development and school development should be linked to situate teacher learning in the school context, and to ground school development in the active participation of teachers. The rise of networks of schools, principals and teachers can be seen as an expression of giving voice to teachers and principals, empowering them and letting them learn in a social context. Networks of teachers arose in the United States and in Europe in the late 1980s (Huberman, 1995; Veugelers & Zijlstra, 1995; Lieberman, 1996). Networks were initiatives of schools together with university faculty. They started meeting together, discussed their practices and developed new educational initiatives. People realised that they shared experiences, but also that they could make different choices and that practices could be different. Teachers became part of a larger

286

WIEL VEUGELERS

educational community, a community they created themselves. Teachers found in these networks a place where they could have a voice, in which their tacit knowledge was valued, and in which they felt empowered even if they realised that change wasn’t easy. 1. What We Learned from Networking Nowadays networks are widespread all over the world. Since 1999, ten of these networks are working together in the International Networks for Democratic Education (INDE). Like networks, this group exchanges experiences, and learns from and visits one another. These school networks wrote a book together in which they show the way they work and what teachers learn in their networks (Veugelers & O’ Hair, 2005). In the final chapter, the authors analyzed the different networks and drew conclusions. I will summarize here the conclusions related to network learning and building and sustaining a network: 1.1. Learning in networks Learning in networks is a collegial, horizontal way of learning. Teachers reflect together on their experiences and construct new knowledge. Learning in networks is a social-constructivist practice. Knowledge from outside, for example from the university, is presented as a conceptual tool for helping teachers to analyze their own practices. Central to network learning is learning from each other. Despite modern ways of communication the personal meeting is important in the process of constructing knowledge. 1.2. Networks as communities of practice Communities of practice are created by shared common concerns. Teachers from different schools become partners in a joint exploration of experiences and new possibilities. School networking links institutions that maintain their own autonomy while seeking collaboration and cooperation. In networking we see processes of both accommodation and profiling of schools. Teachers become part of a broader educational community. 1.3. Shared leadership Becoming a community of practice requires a learning environment in which each voice can be heard and in which everyone has a feeling

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

287

of empowerment, belonging, and mutual care. Leadership in the network therefore has to be shared. The agenda has to be developed collaboratively and both school and university participants serve as members of the leadership team. 1.4. Professional development and school development Most networks are made up of schools, not individual members, because networks aim to build the capacity of the school for educational change. Networks try to bridge personal and school development. Different methods of professional development are part of most networks. In action research, reflecting on personal experiences and visiting other practices are used to permanently challenge educational practice and stimulate educational change. 1.5. Keeping networks fluid Network organizations are flexible and their members organize themselves in ways that meet their needs. Together they aim to develop a culture of change and make structures that support this culture. Network organizations should be fluid and avoid formal structures that give the suggestion of sustaining a well-organized network, but reduce the culture of change of the network and the empowerment of the participants. 1.6. Network philosophy The educational philosophy of a network binds the participants internally and differentiates them from the outer world. A clear philosophy attracts certain schools and distinguishes the network from other networks. Both the Amsterdam network and the INDE have a democratic education philosophy. This network philosophy has to be formulated in a broad sense to leave space for diversity. Diversity stimulates the learning process by challenging the foundations of choice, of practices, and of a presupposed normality. Diversity stimulates dialogue, a philosophy that binds and motivate. 1.7. School-university partnerships All the networks presented in our book include universities. The leadership of the networks is based in universities. Teachers and staff of schools that are part of the management of the network are hired by

288

WIEL VEUGELERS

the universities. The networks use the facilities of the university (also for contracts) and their expertise in supporting educational change and the different content areas of curriculum, teacher professionalism, and school organization and school culture. All networks need to find a formal organization that transcends the participating schools. In our examples networks chose school-university partnerships, but other partnerships are possible in networking. 1.8. Networks and educational policy In my view networks are bottom-up movements that give a voice to teachers and principals and that provide them with the opportunities to express their ideas about education. Networks can try to influence educational policy. In the Netherlands our network is a serious partner for dialogue with the government, not because we support the educational policy strongly, but because the government finds us to be a group that reflects critically on education and works hard to making education better. Educational policy can support networks when it is directed at more autonomy for schools and building capacity for educational change in schools. 1.9. Starting a network The starting process of a network seems crucial for succeeding and sustaining a network. Networks have to be built by working together, developing an educational philosophy, creating a practice, developing structures and building leadership. Essential is a balance between the formal and the informal: in structure, in methods, in talk, in meeting, and in leadership. All participants must develop a feeling of ownership. 2. Can Networks Be Part of Implementation? After these very positive ideas, experiences and reflections on networking, it is time to describe some problematic issues. Networks can be a very powerful means for educational change, particularly as a bottom–up strategy. In educational change an important issue is the balance between top–down and bottom–up strategies: on the national level between policy and schools, in schools between principals and teachers, and in classrooms between teachers and students (Veugelers, 2004). For changes in the educational system a balance

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

289

between top–down and bottom–up has to be found. The top (the policy) has to accept the bottom–up initiatives to create spaces and set the margins for bottom–up initiatives. The top should however not use bottom-up means like networks to try to realize top ends! This is exactly the danger networks fear. Some networks in the Netherlands have succeeded in creating a living culture of change, creating a community of practices, establishing meaningful learning processes, and linking professional development and school development. Politicians and members of the educational change industry embraced the concept of networks and in particular the mentioned effects. They however often neglect the conditions: they try to incorporate networks in their plans, in their professional and commercial strategy. We will give some examples of efforts to use networks for top–down strategies in the Netherlands. In the nineties Dutch government stimulated the building of networks and used the network of the University of Amsterdam as example. It was part of a strategy for restructuring secondary education (see also Veugelers & Zijlstra, 2004). Universities could get money to start a network. Some of the universities, however, were not stimulating bottom–up initiatives and had a clear agenda, wanted to do their research, tried to implement their products, took all the leadership positions and kept all the money for themselves. School participants in the ‘network’ had no feeling of ownership and empowerment, and learning was not horizontal and cooperative. Some of the projects did some good work, but I would not call this a network; it was more of a group project. Shared leadership, empowerment of teachers and collegial and horizontal learning were not the case in these networks. Most of these ‘networks’ stopped after a short period. Teachers and principals were not interested anymore; they had no feeling that it was their network. They were just passive consumers. Also educational consultancy offices sometimes use the word network in their full colour brochures. Educational networks are hot. These offices either try to sell their products or they want to facilitate networks and coach them. The latter means networking as a technique without content. I don’t think we need to be strong purists, but I think we should save the word network for bottom–up initiatives with shared leadership and horizontal learning. Networks then have a limited scope: they help teachers and principals in their educational change, make them part of a broader educational community, and

290

WIEL VEUGELERS

support their empowerment. Making networks part of a top–down strategy is eliminating the strong bottom–up base of networks. The Amsterdam network has often helped other networks to develop: in our own university, in the Netherlands and abroad (in Spain, Finland, Greece and Hong Kong). We always emphasized shared leadership, horizontal learning, ownership by teachers and principals, and developing an educational philosophy. Networks cannot be proclaimed, they have to be built through formal and informal processes. Of course networks can learn from each other, both about the content and about networking and network learning. Networks can be linked smoothly; in connecting networks the same ideas are central. Again formal structures can disempower networks and block real horizontal learning. Let networks remain creative places in which teachers and principals can support each other, explore new possibilities, and experience being part of a larger community. Being in a network can give them the empowerment, the competencies, the ideals and ideas to be serious partners in more top–down implementations of educational change. Let networks remain informal and fluid sites for collegial learning. Like with students teachers should be part of authentic and more structured learning processes. Both fulfil other ends, but are together necessary for educational changes. Network theory as developed by Castells (1996), Wenger (1998) and Wellman (1999) shows us how dynamic and meaningful networks can be in different areas of social life. A difficult point with educational networks is that education is part of a national policy that despite all discourses on autonomy tries to regulate educational practices. In an era of standards, assessments and inspectorates, these regulating forces become even stronger and penetrate more into concrete educational practices. Real networks remain powerful if they are loosely connected with formal educational change. Let networks be creative laboratories for new ways of learning.

References Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Fullan, M.G. (2003). Change Forces with a Vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Goodson, I.F. (2003). Professional Knowledge, Professional Lives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

291

Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualisations, exchanges and experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 1(2), 193–212. Lieberman, A. (1996). Creating intentional learning communities. Educational Leadership 53(2), 51–55. Veugelers, W. (2004). Between control and autonomy: Restructuring secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Change 5(2), 141–60. Veugelers, W. & O’Hair, M.J. (Ed.) (2005). Network Learning for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Veugelers, W. & Zijlstra, H. (1995). Learning together: In-service education in networks of schools. British Journal of In-Service Education 27(1), 37–48. Veugelers, W. & Zijlstra, H. (2004). Networks of schools and constructing citizenship in secondary education. In F. Hernandez & I.F. Goodson (eds), Social Geographies of Educational Change (pp. 65–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. B. Wellman (ed). (1999). Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities. Oxford, UK: Westview Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

AUTHOR’S BIO Wiel Veugelers is the Director of the School Network of the University of Amsterdam and Director of the International Network of Networks for Democratic Education. He is a professor of education at the University of Amsterdam and the University for Humanistics in Utrecht. WIEL VEUGELERS

University of Amsterdam Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam E-mail: [email protected]