Leading Networks

Networks in education

Networks are fast becoming the nervous system of our society and it is no exaggeration to state that the twenty-first century is the age of networks (Van Dijk 2006). Digital technology is the first thing that comes to mind when people think about networks however, it is important to note that networks are not only present in the technology arena; but also have effects in politics, economics, society, culture and, of course, education. One of the main developments over recent years has been the growth of networking in school settings. A network in education is generally considered to represent an extended group or system of connected people and organisations with similar interests/concerns who interact and exchange knowledge, and whose aims/purposes include mutual assistance, support and increased learning (Hadfield et al. 2006; Kools and Stoll 2016).

The emergence of networking in education has generated a debate about the skills that professionals involved in networking need to master. According to the World Economic Forum (2020), the fourth industrial revolution, of which we are a part, is demanding a corpus of skills, such as global citizenship skills, a focus on building awareness about the wider world, sustainability and playing an active role in the global community; innovation and creativity skills, which enable innovation and include curiosity, creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration with people of diverse backgrounds; technology skills, including programming, digital responsibility and the use of technology; and interpersonal skills, which are based on interpersonal emotional intelligence, such as empathy, cooperation, negotiation and leadership.

There are several reasons that explain the incorporation of networks into education. The traditional single-school model is evolving towards more complex organisational forms, that necessitates greater school collaboration. A new configuration is required that responds to fast-technological change, collective knowledge creation and information sharing at classroom, school, and system level (Mifsud 2020). In many respects, the vertical-hierarchical organisation is giving way to a horizontal-lateral framework. This paradigm brings with it not only a modification of the conception we have of education, which is shifting towards approaches and pedagogies of a collaborative nature, but also alternative models of leadership practice such as distributed leadership (Azorín, Harris, and Jones 2019).

Sliwka (2003, 63) stated that ‘networks can thus represent vibrant motors of change in education’. Motivated by this aspiration, the special edition of School Leadership and Management entitled ‘Leading Networks’ demonstrates that many education systems are turning their attention to networking as a way of improving teaching and learning. In recent years, a strong movement has arisen, led by governments through policies, and agents (practitioners, researchers, teachers, leadership teams and many others) who encourage initiatives focused on networking to address fragmentation and to tackle problems which are difficult for individuals to solve on their own (Harris, Jones, and Huffman 2017). Indeed, the development of education networks as regional or national strategies, support bottom-up policies that can better articulate a diversity of demands of communities, school leaders and teachers (Azorín and Muijs 2017).

For the first time, education networks are being monitored at an international (European) level. For example, a strong networking trend is flourishing in European education systems. In particular, the report ‘Networks for learning and development across school education. Guiding principles for policy development on the use of networks in school education systems’ (European Commission 2018) signals a pivotal investment in education networks in Europe.

An overview of the literature reveals a prevalence of school improvement networks in challenging contexts and vulnerable circumstances (Pino-Yancovic et al. 2020; Ruiz-Román, Molina, and Alcaide 2019). Various studies have shown that networks can provide an efficient use of human and physical resources in a geographical area, they can act as a catalyst for innovation, change and the generation of professional capital (Ehren and Godfrey 2017; Hargreaves and Fullan 2012; Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan 2016).

Among scholars in the field there is an increasing interest in the study and promotion of interconnected relationships, and a body of work emerging about professional learning networks. As Brown and Poortman (2018, 1) note, the implication of a fast-changing world where networks are essential in achieving effective school improvement is quite evident: ‘there is now a real need to ensure teachers participate in learning network activity as well as share the learning that results from this activity with others’. The added value of these alliances is underlined by the research base (Schleicher 2018). In their work, Fullan, Gardner, and Drummy (2019) highlight the importance of making connections with the world, of thinking critically, of working collaboratively and of empathising with others as issues that are vital in order to face future challenges.

The leadership of collaborative learning networks

Faranda (1991, 41) notes that: ‘leaders who survive and prosper have learned to adapt to change’. Contemporary educational leadership therefore needs to understand and embrace the requirements that the network society (Castells 2010). With the sphere of networking, school leaders need to adapt to the role that society demands, set an instructional agenda and build the cooperation and collaboration required (Spillane and Lowenhaupt 2019).

Leadership is an essential contributor to effective networking in education. School leaders with multiple areas of responsibility and the effective distribution of leadership are important for networks to thrive (European Commission 2018). Leading collective action, however, is no easy task in education. The leadership of networks is often assumed to be different from the leadership of single agencies or organisations, but there is relatively little empirical support for this assumption (Leithwood and Ndifor 2016). There are more and more schools working in networks and signing up to this wave of collaboration, but, research into network leadership has not kept up with the pace of engagement.

The special edition seeks to address this knowledge gap and focuses on where school leaders might concentrate their efforts within a network structure. Bridging the gap between what we know about effective collaboration and what school networks do requires a more precise understanding of the role of leadership. An important consideration is how leadership might support the development of school networks as vehicles for change. Beyond the school gates, leadership strategies and incentives to promote a culture of collaboration will be needed to ensure that networks generate the professional capacity to improve schools.

There are significant reasons why the leadership of networks is in need of critical consideration:

First, despite the popularity of networking in education, the knowledge base on how school networks are most effectively led remains relatively limited (Hadfield and Chapman 2011; Harris, Jones, and Huffman 2017). There is increased interest in ways of leading collaboratively and ascertaining how collective learning impacts on practice (Harris and Jones 2019; Trust, Carpenter, and Krutka 2018).

Second, as Brown (2019, 8) states, ‘school leaders must want to reach out beyond the boundaries of their schools and for their teachers to engage in collaborative endeavors with others’. Effective leaders who support networking need to understand their role in a broad form that extends outside the school (Kirtman and Fullan 2016).

Third, no single supreme leader can take on the task of leading the collective action in networks. Influential authors such as Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) conclude that we still have too much faith in the heroic individual saviour instead of in communities of leaders (individuals, teams, professionals) capable of working together and effectively. Hence the emerging discussion about the leadership of networks has focused on distributed leadership as a lens on collective leadership practice and engagement (Azorín, Harris, and Jones 2019).

Fourth, collaboration is one of the key competences that current citizens need to acquire, and education leaders are no exception. As Daly and Stoll (2018) note, the ability to work well with others, tap into networks and draw on collective intelligence is of critical importance to current generations. At highlighted already, collaborative networking in global education is under the spotlight. Consequently, efforts need to be made to cultivate a stable and solid base of knowledge in a constantly moving world. In this respect, the liquid modernity that Bauman (2012) describes can help researchers in the field to pursue a better understanding of the context in which networking is being developed.

In this special edition, it is argued that more attention needs to be paid to the impact and the sustainability of networks. While a great deal has been written about school to school, networks and independent, robust, empirical base about impact (particularly on student learning) that goes beyond teachers’ self-report or case studies, remains hard to find. In terms of sustainability, discussions have focused on school leaders’ engagement in networking; the action of network actors and the positive outcomes for their institutions; and the consideration of network members as active change agents (Hubers and Poortman 2018).

Looking to the future, some of the benefits and developments from the practice of networking are related to raising levels of equity, to improving student outcomes and to increasing the collaboration of professionals within, between and beyond schools (Azorín 2019). This is part of the leading for equity and excellence agenda in education (Harris and Jones 2020). However, from the focus of school improvement, O’Hara et al. (2020) recognise that a constant theme throughout the networking debate is that the quality of student outcomes derived from being part of a network. Evidence about the impact on students varies considerably and it is challenging to ascertain if there have been any genuine and discernible improvements at all.

Introduction to the articles

The special edition comprises seven articles that provide theoretical foundations, evidence-based knowledge and approaches that focus on how the leadership of networks is being conducted internationally. Three articles suggest different theoretical lens to make network leadership advance:

Azorín, Harris and Jones assess how far distributed leadership serves to explore network interactions. The article discusses the contribution that leadership makes to effective networking, and argues that adopting a distributed perspective on leadership practice within networks could afford a better understanding of how networks operate.

Brown and Flood incorporate a conceptual exploration of the role of school leaders in creating a two-way link between Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) and schools. In their attempt to clarify and conquer the labyrinth where the networked school leader is moving, a theoretical discussion of three vital network leadership functions (formalising, prioritising and mobilising) is presented.

Rincón-Gallardo outlines three key leadership roles to turn school networks into vehicles to liberate learning in schools and across school systems: lead learner, who creates the conditions for people in the network to learn; culture shifter, who transforms the culture of collaboration; and system changer, who influences change in the larger educational system.

The next four articles in the special edition include evidence and outcomes based on networking experiences in various educational contexts.

In the United States, empirical research conducted by Liou and Daly focuses on the network leader and investigates the extent to which leadership is shaped by social interactions around work-related collaboration, and the associated factors analysis that may help understand such leadership, concluding that leaders are susceptible to the influence of their peer collaborators.

Longás, Riera and de Querol present an analysis of emerging networks in Spain. The article examines a multiple case study of networks that are being supported by the CaixaProinfancia programme, which promotes intersectoral cooperation to address the social and educational exclusion of children in this country.

Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada propose a collaborative inquiry strategy to support the development of networked leadership capacities. Their research, carried out in Chile, shows that, although there is a competitive culture promoted by marked-oriented educational policies, is possible and useful to advance from a culture of competition to collaboration.

Finally, Herrera-Pastor, Juárez and Ruiz-Román focus on a disadvantaged area of Málaga (Spain) called ‘Los Asperones’, where people live in extreme social exclusion. The authors highlight the forms of collaborative leadership that takes place within a network which seeks to subvert inequality in an environment characterised by challenging circumstances.

Final thoughts

The articles in this special edition present new knowledge and stimulate innovative ways of thinking about leading networks. The contributions within this special edition promote reflection about contemporary education reform in countries like the United Kingdom, United States, Spain, Chile, Colombia and Mexico.

The idea of ‘network leadership’ (Azorín, Harris, and Jones 2019; Díaz-Gibson et al. 2017) is becoming more prevalent along with the notion of the ‘networked school leader’ (Brown 2020; Liou and Daly 2019; Moolenaar and Sleegers 2015) simply because of more research that is focusing on school to school collaboration.

Collaborative networks are now a clear focus of enquiry for educational research, but the empirical evidence about their impact, especially upon students, remains thin. Much is celebrated and promoted in the name of networks but within this white noise the question remains – what difference do they make to learners? Consequently, those who are engaged in promoting and promulgating school to school networks need to think carefully and deeply about whether they are an organisational structure that can impact positively on students or whether they just benefit teachers in terms of professional learning and support.

The evidence base on networking is expanding but it is important that those working in this field pay far more attention to issues of impact. The structures, processes and models of professional networking are well documented but there is still insufficient attention to the difference such networks actually make to learning and teaching. This is the main challenge to those researching in this area and it implies that future studies will require far greater methodological sophistication and have to go beyond self-report which can be highly unreliable as a measure.

In summary, it is time to rethink networking policy, research and practice. Although there are still questions to be answered, collaborative networks are advancing at the international level. There is no doubt that network will remain as a strong part of the future education landscape but in terms of leadership, more focused research is required to offer increased illumination about the leadership actions that support effective networking. This special edition represents a step forward in this direction.