School Capacity Building and Sustainable Improvement
School Capacity Building and Sustainable Improvement
There are many definitions of sustainability across the globe, but within these are some common features. The Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability discusses the definition of sustainable development as being that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (2009, p. 2). This definition is congruent with the one developed by Hargreaves and Fink who argue that: “sustainability does not simply mean whether something can last. It addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future” (2003, p. 3). Sustainability is seen as continuous improvement, as an ongoing “learning by doing” that actively involves teachers, students and parents to understand the reason for the change and to commit to the improvement (Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability, 2009). Capacity building, on the other hand, is more than school improvement: According to Crowther (2011, p. 6) “capacity building is the internal process of mobilizing a school’s resources in order to enhance priority outcomes and sustain those improved outcomes”. Harris and Lambert (2003) explain that school capacity building is concerned with providing opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively in new ways, arguing that schools that build the capacity for improvement and implementing change are more likely to sustain improvement over time. Schools that have built capacity and capability are willing and ready to change, having developed within leaders the ability to manage the change process needed to effect improved students’ outcomes Fullan (1985) argues. In this conceptualisation, the ultimate goal for school improvement is not just to implement the needed improvement initiatives, but rather to build the capacity that secures long-lasting effects on students’ outcomes. From Ministry experience in Bahrain, it seems that the high performance schools are adaptive to change, with their teachers having a clear sense of the reasons for improvement. Teachers at such schools demonstrate a willingness to change their practice in response to the outcomes of students’ achievements, as well as considering work skills and knowledge requirements or future societal needs. The literature suggests that for schools to be adaptive and know what and how to change, not only do school principals need to have a school improvement model that is clear and useful (Novick, Kress, & Elias, 2002), but they also need to know how to sustain the improvement for enough time to see the impact on students’ achievement (Fullan, 1985). According to Fullan (2001, cited in (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, & Russ, 2010) there is a desire for educational reform voiced in many countries, a call for change that is guided by powerful ideas but shallow commitment, with little attention being paid to the building of capacity for implementation and sustained progress. As a result, school improvement reforms have failed in many countries, especially where governments have tried to do too much at once, layering many changes on top of one another and adopting new initiatives with little analysis of why this initiative is needed, or how it fits in with, or replaces, what is being practiced already. Indeed, often new initiatives in school reforms are adopted before teachers have had time to practice and see the benefit from the old ones (Muijs et al., 2010). That is the case when insufficient effort is being paid to create the conditions for building capacity within schools to accommodate such major changes. School capacity building is concerned with creating the conditions and opportunities for working collaboratively to enhance learning. In this scenario school becomes a professional community where teachers participate in decision making, commit to the improvement, and take collective responsibility towards their learning and students’ outcomes (Harris, 2001). Nonetheless, the major challenge facing schools is not how to improve but how to sustain improvement (Harris & Lambert, 2003), and that cannot be done when there are key people in positions of power favouring the old style (Mertkan-Ozunlu & Thomson, 2009). School capacity building includes activities such as redesigning initial teacher education, preparing teachers and principals for change, and creating professional learning communities inside and outside the school (Fullan, 2000). Many studies, such as those conducted by Ortiz and Taylor (2009); Dinham and Crowther (2011); and Anderson and Kumari (2009); suggested that building school capacity is essential to support the implementation of school improvement initiatives and to sustain progress. Indeed it has been argued that sustainability will only occur when school development is the ultimate requirement, initiatives are implemented to develop its practices internally and there is both complete support and challenge externally (Fullan, 2000).
Sustainability in school improvement will also occur where the improvement fosters learning, is shared by all stakeholders and it is supported by sufficient resources (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003), and effective leadership. Dinham and Crowther (2011) suggest following a distributed leadership approach, identifying three categories of elements necessary for effective capacity building: Firstly, the tangible features such as teachers, school, students, school infrastructure and finance; secondly intangible features such as school environment, professional development, teaching and learning methods, and leadership and management; and thirdly the support the schools get from MoE and government, which depends on the value placed on education by the decision makers.
In summary, successful school capacity building is achieved through developing professional teaching and learning methods, good use of all factors affecting learning and establishing professional learning communities to sustain school improvement and ensure learners maximise their potential as reflected in assessment outcomes. Many writers in the field, such as Scheerens et al., (2013) and Dinham (2005), indicated that involvement of stakeholders, the sharing of vision, mission, values, commitment, and the establishment of a learning community are vital factors in educational leadership effectiveness to achieve better school outcomes. The question of leadership for sustainable improvement is therefore an issue that warrants further attention and is discussed in Section 3.6 below, with Professional Learning Communities addressed in Section 3.8.
Anderson, S., & Kumari, R. (2009). Continuous Improvement in Schools: Understanding the Practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 281–292.
Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability. (2009). Education For Sustainability: The Role of Education in Engaging and Equipping People for Change.
Crowther, F. (2011). From School Improvement to Sustained Capacity: The Parallel Leadership Pathway. California: Corwin Press.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal Leadership for Outstanding Educational Outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338–356.
Dinham, S., & Crowther, F. (2011). Sustainable School Capacity Building – One Step Back, Two Steps Forward? Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 616–623.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391–421.
Fullan, M. (2000). The Three Stories of Education Reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581–584.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining Leadership. The Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693–700.
Harris, A. (2001). Building the Capacity for School Improvement. School Leadership & Management, 21(3), 261–270.
Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement. England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Mertkan-Ozunlu, S., & Thomson, P. (2009). Educational Reform in North Cyprus—Towards the Making of a Nation/State? International Journal of Educational Development, 29(1), 99–106.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., & Russ, J. (2010). Improving Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas – A Review of Research Evidence Improving Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. (December 2011), 37–41.
Novick, B., Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2002). Building Learning Communities with Character How to Integrate Ccademic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ortiz, A., & Taylor, P. (2009). Learning Purposefully in Capacity Development Why, What and When to Measure? Paris.
Scheerens, J., Witziers, B., & Steen, R. (2013). A Meta-analysis of School Effectiveness Studies. Revista de Educacion, 2013(361), 619–645.
