Week One - Tony

Report on current and previous organisations - describe how they learn?


My current organisation, when viewed through the Senge et al. Fifth Discipline Model is certainly an organisation that offers the opportunities to learn. Certainly in the last few years, my organisation, ESF, has made positive moves towards professionalising and capitaliising on the economy of scale the 17 school foundation has in terms of cross-pollination of ideas and organised training. recent moves towards formalised international accreditation are also forcing schools to examine their practices, philosophies and objectives.

1: Personal Mastery
The road to self actualisation can be a difficult one for a teacher. My organisation certainly encourages staff to explore their skill sets, share in their knowledge and seek new and better ways of doing things and delivering interesting content. With through better subject area knowledge or better pedagogical practices. That said this first discipline in not universal throughout all staff but it is encouraged and systems are in place to offer time and experiences to allow staff to explore new and exciting development opportunities. ESF has a centralised CPD database that is accessible by all staff allowing them to look at upcoming opportunities for development. Moreover each school has a dedicated officer who will help arrange and co-ordinate both ESF CPD and other external opportunities that staff may wish to undertake. They are paying for part of this course (I hope!).

Seeing staff go on training and extend themselves often gives impetus to other staff to do likewise and this two step flow to training is beneficial as it is not organisation directed - rather inter-staff. For example I’ve had a few members of staff ask me about this course and show interest in pursuing it, or another of the offering here at HKU. So while Senge et al. posit that the tension tends to be internal, it is certainly true that external forces as also impact that internal mechanism.

2: Shared Vision.
On this facet, the school does not fare as well. I think it is true to say that all staff share a common goal of providing a quality education to our students, but I would not say that everyone has a “shared vision of the future”. Or maybe it is that we all have the same goal, but there are often competing ideas on how best to get there and what time frame is acceptable. While we certainly have a clearly stated philosophy and stated and agree upon objectives that suggest we have a shared vision, these were also written with the input from staff, parents and students - an important element in ensuring a shared vision is successful according to Senge’s ‘Three Nested Systems of Activity’. Maybe Senge et al. believe that a shared vision is enough but I think it needs to be a partnership along the journey. I don’t think my school has that yet - we are getting better, but we aren’t there.

3: Mental Models
Maybe this is why our shared vision seems a bit hollow in its current incarnation. Our different mental models remain untested and latent. As a result we are not able to see things clearly from another persons point of view. Our assumptions and beliefs are not in line with others. Maybe this should go as number two one Senge’s list as it seems logical to address this before anything can be truly ‘shared’.

In Senge’s text, Smith et al. speak about he “ladder of inference” and I certainly see this - as actually partake in this - at my organisation. Here’s an example of how many teacher climb the ladder: I am busy. I have some of the highest contact hours in any international school in HK and yet I am always being bombarded by middle management and their need to ‘change’ things. I need to direct my time to areas that are important, so I’ll either ignore new initiatives, avoid them or do the bare minimum to get by so I can spend my time where it is most needed. This creates tension between staff and management. Over time this tension also escalates to the point that low level hostility is expected by management in relation to any new proposal and this in turn informs the way they propose it - sometimes telling staff to take part as they fear requesting volunteers will not work. I think both groups could learn from a bit of ‘mental model’ training!

4: Team Learning
My organisation is very good at this. In the classrooms and at teacher level, small teams are very effective and positive interaction is common. I can’t really talk about teams in the management structure as I am not on any, or teams involving external stakeholders, but from my vantage point we do very well in our faculties and subject disciplines. We have less success across faculties but are getting better at seeking out opportunities for cross-curricular development and sharing of ideas and learning.

5: Systems Thinking
My school also ranks poorly here in many ways. The problem is not that people do not appreciate their role in the system, the issue is the sheer number of dynamic, competing systems that decisions and action impact upon. This web of complexity is compounded by different messages that are being given about them. Sometimes the school’s focus is on safety, so that is paramount in our decision-making process, other times it is administration so that becomes a primary focus of decision-making. Senge et al. argue that systems lead to growth and stability over time, and this is the main issue we face. Our systems are constantly changing. From curriculum ot administration to pedagogical expectation, we are not given time ti simply stop, reflect and consolidate our position. Here is where being part of a foundation is a disadvantage - as we are constantly being fed new ways of doing things and old ways often change with little or no real need to do so.

Reference:
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.