The Learning School Project

The Learning School Project Final Report

THE LEARNING SCHOOL PROJECT

FINAL REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON A PILOT PROJECT IN REGION 4 OF ATECI

SEPTEMBER, 2008

1 The Learning School Project Final Report

CONTENTS

1. THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE PROJECT 1.1. BACKGROUND 1.2. THE LEARNING FOCUS OF THE PROJECT 1.3. THE ORGANISATION OF THE PROJECT

2. THE SCHOOL PROJECTS 2.1. THE SCHOOLS 2.1.1. Selection of Schools 2.1.2. Readiness of Schools 2.2. THE PROJECTS 2.2.1. The School Contexts 2.2.2. School Organisation 2.2.3. Project Activity 2.2.4. Learning Outcomes 2.3. PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS 2.4. CONCLUSIONS

3. PROJECT COORDINATION 3.1. DESIGN TEAM 3.1.1. Membership 3.1.2. Skills 3.2. WORK WITH SCHOOLS 3.2.1. Develop Awareness of what it is to be a Learning School 3.2.2. Give training in key elements of Project Management 3.2.3. Give active support in the content area of the project 3.2.4. To develop a reflective self-evaluation process for participants 3.2.5. Provide facilitation for a sense of teamwork 3.3. ACADEMIC ADVISOR 3.4. DESIGN TEAM EVALUATIONS

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1. INVOLVEMENT 4.1.1. Education Centre 4.1.2. The Support Services 4.1.3. The Schools 4.2. LEARNING SCHOOL PROJECT OUTCOMES 4.2.1. Aims 4.2.2. Understanding 4.2.3. Benefits 4.3. ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES 4.4. RECOMMENDATIONS

2 Learning School Final Report

1. THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE PROJECT

1.1. BACKGROUND

The proposal for the Learning School Project focused clearly on a new context for learning. This context was outlined in the Statement of Strategy (2005-2007) of the Department of Education and Science:  The changing face of delivery of education, including changes in the practice and profession of teaching to reflect today’s information age.  The role of the teacher is less focused on the provision of knowledge and more concerned with the teaching of learning skills.  The changing environment requires ongoing training, support and development. (p.12 emphasis added)

In this context, the concepts of the knowledge-based society and the learning institution are central to the development of education policy. Traditionally, schools have been organised to facilitate teaching and the acquisition of knowledge. Administrative systems, scheduling, classroom management techniques and assessment procedures have focused on knowledge as a product rather than learning as a process. To focus on the learning school requires a change of mindset. This new mindset involves re- conceptualising the teaching-learning dynamic to focus on learning; re-imaging the roles of teachers and students in the process; and developing a new vision for the school.

The Learning School Project was conceptualised as an action research project that would enable participants, organisers and policy makers to reflect together on the experience and implications of this new mindset. The aims of the project were to:

1. develop an increased awareness of what constitutes a learning school 2. support school-based activities promoting the ongoing development of the learning school 3. enhance the capacity of individual teachers to contribute to the learning school 4. nurture teacher leadership in schools

For the purposes of the project, the Learning School was conceptualised as a community of practice which respects and values learning and where the culture is one of:  continuing reflection and inquiry  commitment to the process of review and self-evaluation  participation in ongoing development

The Academic Advisor anticipated that the main benefits of the completed project would be seen in:  The Empowerment of Individual Learners. The schools will have a greater appreciation of the learning dynamic and develop flexible approaches to learning situations. They will develop the capacity for reflective practice and self-

3 Learning School Final Report

evaluation and be able to apply meta-cognitive skills to learning tasks. This will result in a deeper commitment to life-long learning.  Collegiality. At a school level, there will be a greater commitment to collaboration and teamwork in promoting learning in the classroom and in peer support structures among teachers. There will be a greater sense of dispersed leadership, as teachers are willing to make suggestions on whole-school approaches to promoting learning.  Institutional Responsiveness. The school will identify new approaches to promoting and supporting learners. This will be reflected in assessment and reporting protocols in the classroom and in policies for continuous professional development.

1.2. THE LEARNING FOCUS OF THE PROJECT

In planning for the project, it was clear that three dimensions needed to be clarified:  Learning. The concept of learning promoted in this project was that of deep learning. This approach focused on the development of meaning and seeing connections between different experiences. In particular, it promoted the concept of reflective practice as a means to achieving deep learning. Participants were encouraged to see connections between classroom and system experiences.  The Learning School. As outlined above, the learning school was conceptualised as a community of practice. Central to this idea was the development of a team of practitioners. It was intended that the Learning School Project would support such a team, and hopefully extend their influence to the school and the system.  A Learning School Project. As the concept of the learning school was new to many participants, a key element of the project was to develop realistic expectations of how a single project, limited in time and resources, might influence development at a school level. This element of the project design sought to promote excellence within the project, and then to move, through reflection, to the systemic implications both at school and national level. The Design Team felt that excellence within the projects undertaken was a prerequisite for motivating participants to deeper reflections. This entailed the selection of relevant and meaningful project topics as well as developing evaluation and reporting mechanisms that focused strongly on learning for the school and the system.

In targeting the actions of the design team, four main perspectives were considered.

 The individual learner is central to the development of the learning school. In coming to appreciate this role of the individual, it is important to develop a clear understanding of what drives learning – the motivation and strategies used by individuals in the learning process. This involves an understanding of how learners respond to different personal and institutional settings. For teachers in the classroom, the focus may well be on how young people engage with different subject areas. It also applies to teachers and administrators in the school setting

4 Learning School Final Report

engaged in their own professional development, and can be the focus of attention for personal reflection or for management teams who wish to promote continuous professional development. A key element of the work of the design team was to ensure a common understanding of individual learning, both in the target of the project, in the project participants and in the wider school community.

 In considering the learning process, it is important to understand how roles change in a teacher-student partnership as a teacher becomes a facilitator of learning rather than a dispenser of knowledge. In this approach, learning is seen as transformation rather than information. As a partner in the process, the teacher is also learning and developing. In developing a project to explore this dimension, there is a focus on methodologies and assessment protocols. In terms of methodologies, there is a focus on teamwork and collaboration both in the classroom and between teachers who deliver a similar curriculum. In terms of assessment, there is a greater focus on helping students to learn. For teacher development, there is a new focus on reflective practice, self-evaluation and continuing professional development. The focus of the design team was to support the team building efforts in schools and in particular to encourage reflection on processes of data collection, evaluation and reporting.

 A systemic factor in the learning school is the way structures support the new approach to learning. As school personnel exercise responsibility for learning, new approaches to monitoring learning outcomes and processes will be required both in students and in teachers. The data collected will differ from that collected in the past, and this requires new skills in analysis and response. The systemic response needs to include supporting teachers in teams as well as individually. Part of the work of the design team was to encourage the project teams in each school to disseminate the benefits of the project within the staff, as well as within the project. It encouraged them to reflect on school organisation needs to support this level of teamwork.

 In developing a project on the learning school, the inter-level dynamics between individuals, the learning process and the organisational systems needs to be appreciated. Individual gains are promoted by good processes and support structures. Similarly, individual learning can be negatively affected by poor processes. Also, gains achieved by individuals investing in good processes can lead to alienation if they are not supported by a responsive system. A key aspiration of the project team was to monitor the developments that were occurring in a variety of schools and to discern implications for the national system, with special reference to the support needs of schools.

1.3. THE ORGANISATION OF THE PROJECT

The Design Team was responsible for the development of the project. Taking into account the aims of the project, the Design Team sought to integrate the three dimensions

5 Learning School Final Report of Learning, Learning School and the Learning School Project with the four perspectives of the individual learner, the learning process, systemic issues and inter-level dynamics. In the delivery of the project, they focused on four main strategies.

1. Developing a shared understanding of the Learning School. This involved engaging with the participants on their understanding of learning and the learning school. This focus was to be central in their choice of project content. It was also to influence their design of the project to ensure that reflection and results contributed to a greater understanding of the systemic implications of the learning schools. 2. Project Management. This aspect of the project sought to ensure that participants had skills in the design, delivery and review of projects. At the design phases, participants were introduced to different types of project design, including action research and the micro-politics of working in one’s own organisation. In the implementation phases, there was a focus on team-building skills with an emphasis on both task and personnel management skills. In the evaluation phase, the focus was on evaluating learning and capturing the organisational implications. 3. Impact Analysis. This aspect of the project aimed to give quality assurance to the project. In the design phase, it involved ensuring that participating schools were engaged in projects that were suitable, feasible and had potential value. In the implementation phase, it involved ensuring that appropriate and sufficient data was collected in order to judge the impact of the project on learning. In the evaluation phase, there was an emphasis on dissemination of information with a special emphasis on non-participants within the school. 4. Support Structures. Through a process of personal and group reflection, participants were invited to explore their personal and collective strengths and weaknesses and to develop responsive strategies for personal CPD. They were also helped to understand school development issues related to the learning school. They reflected on strategies to develop the learning school, and came to a greater understanding of their potential leadership contribution in promoting learning in their own school. This was facilitated by peer interaction within the project and there was individualised help by regular visits from support staff to each school.

From the perspective of the design team, the development of the project could be conceptualised as part of a change process, with the project itself and the design team members acting as change agents.

6 Learning School Final Report

Figure 1. An outline of the cycle of change in organisations, and the different roles of change agents.

Figure 1 outlines the cycle of change within organisations. Typically, this is characterised by (a) the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction which leads to (b) a disturbance. This disturbance may be a crisis, where a problem must be faced, or it can be a positive and supportive expectation resulting from success. The disturbance leads to (c) a decision to do something about it, although this decision may not be very specific. This gives rise to (d) a focused diagnosis of the problem and (e) proposals for solution. Once a proposal for action is accepted, (f) this is implemented. The success or failure of the implementation leads to a new level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

The roles of change agents at different stages of the cycle are illustrated outside the circle in Figure 1. These five roles can be applied to the development of the project. o At the initial phase, the change agent acts a catalyst. In this project, the proposed project was a stimulus for schools to engage with the concept. The possibility of engagement was a positive catalyst in the schools. o A second role for the change agent is that of process helper. In this phase, the agent acts as a facilitator as the organisation decides to engage and defines the problem. In this project, that role was undertaken in two ways. Firstly, through general inputs on the nature of learning, the learning school and the nature of the project, schools came to a better understanding of the issues to be addressed. In this, they were encouraged to identify specific needs in their own school, rooted in classroom practice. This was supported by members of the support services visiting the schools and helping the project team focus on a single, “doable” area. o The third role is defined as “solution giver”. In this role, the change agent points to possible alternatives for action. In this project, this role, where necessary, was performed mainly by members of the support services helping schools identify specific targets for their projects. In many cases, the schools had a clear idea of

7 Learning School Final Report

the “solution”. In other cases, clarification took place through peer interaction at the project sessions. o The fourth role is described as “resource linker”. This role helps the organisation identify resources that will maximise benefits at the implementation phase. In this project, that role was exercised at a number of different levels. The common sessions for the project helped schools identify tools for project management. In particular, these tools focused on team-building and evaluation techniques. This was done through input and through sharing between the schools. The support services also provided links to necessary information or in- service in order to help schools with the implementation phase of the project. This was conducted on site at the discretion of the schools. In some cases, the support meant that schools came to a deeper appreciation of the resources already available to them. o The fifth role is described as a “stabilizer”. This refers to the need to embed the positive elements of a change process in the organisation. In this project, the focus was on helping schools move from “project activity” to a “culture of learning”. This was emphasised as part of “harvesting” the benefits of the project. To some extent, this was embedded in the writing-up exercise of the project. It was encouraged at the common sessions and in visits to schools.

The project was delivered over four phases.

Preliminary January 2007 Introduction. Outline of project. Invitation to participate February 2007 Selection of schools

Design March 2007 Introductory session. Outline of project expectations. The Learning School. Bigg’s model of learning. Planning the project in your school April 2007 Project management and data gathering Team building Focus on resources May 2007 Sharing about projects Project management and data development (2) Team building (2) Focus on resources (2) Implementation September 2007 Sharing about Projects Developing the research dimension of action research Reflection process. November 2007 Towards a harvest. Reporting our project Reflection on our learning.- Dissemination April 2008 Showcase event.

Figure 2. Key events in the Learning School Project

8 Learning School Final Report

2. THE SCHOOL PROJECTS

2.1. THE SCHOOLS

2.1.1. Selection of Schools

The invitation to participate in the project was sent to all schools within the catchment area of the four Education Centres that make up Region 4 of ATECI. They were invited to a presentation on January 27, 2007 and, based on what they heard, they were asked to apply for inclusion in the project.

The project itself was widely advertised and schools were clearly interested in the project. However, the applications from different areas were uneven. The result was that the majority of participants were linked with two of the Education Centres. No predetermined criteria for selection were set. Schools were selected on a modified random system, based on the pattern of applications. This took account of regional and sectoral affiliation.

Regional Representation. Region Applications Selected West Cork 2 1 Limerick 5 2 Cork 14 6 Tralee 14 6

Sector Representation Sector Applications Selected Special 1 1 Vocational 4 2 Community/Comp 7 3 Voluntary Secondary 23 9 Figure 3. Patterns of application and selection of schools in the Learning School Project

2.1.2. Readiness of Schools

Two aspects of the project management impacted on the readiness of the schools. One was the selection process, and the second was the way the invitation was processed.

The selection of schools was based on a random sample. The criteria did not stipulate the particular type of project to be chosen or evidence of the capacity of the school to engage in the project. The value behind this approach at Steering Group and Design Team level was that of inclusion and a desire not to limit the schools in the type of project they might choose.

9 Learning School Final Report

For a pilot project, this was unusual. The result was that the schools reflected a wide range of experience of previous involvement in project work. The schools needed very different levels of support during the project. The intensity of this support meant that the support involved often focused on supporting schools in the project content, rather than promoting the Learning School dimension. However, using a principle of inclusion was both exciting and demanding. The project team developed a greater sense of the issues that affect all schools by dealing with such a wide range of schools and helping them focus on issues to promote the learning school. However the actual costs of the project (in time and energy) were much higher than anticipated.

Although every effort was made to ensure that participants understood the purpose of the project and had some concept of what it entailed, some schools seemed to have applied for inclusion based more on opportunism for involvement rather than from a commitment to the concept of the learning school. In subsequent feedback, the following points were made about the invitation process:  The venue was unsuitable for the high turnout at the initial meeting. The room was overcrowded and uncomfortable. This did not facilitate discussion and clarification of issues.  Those who attended the first information session were not necessarily those who ran the projects in the selected schools. The information session took place in January. It was often only after the school had been accepted – in March – that the school project team was nominated. This meant that, in some cases, the school project teams did not have a full appreciation of the project. It soon became clear that many of the participants had committed to the project without realising the full extent of their commitment to the “learning school” dimension. Their interest was more classroom-based.  The fact that the design team did not limit the types of projects that would be accepted perhaps contributed to a lack of clarity about the commitment needed. The decision to apply for inclusion did not involve any commitment to a particular project and some schools only developed the focus of their project during the sessions.

The design phase included time to clarify the scope of the school project and to develop a sense of community among the different schools. Many schools required considerable support in designing or refining their projects and they were well into the Learning School Project sessions before this happened. This was facilitated somewhat by the timetable of the Project, which spread over two school years. The first phase (March to June) was taken as a design phase, where the schools could plan for the following year.

2.2. THE PROJECTS

Each school developed a project within the school. A school team was appointed to manage the project, and two people from each school attended the six support sessions organised by the Design Team.

10 Learning School Final Report

2.2.1. The School Contexts

In general, the choice of school project topic fell into one of two categories: Firstly, the school had prioritised an area of learning within their School Development Planning or other activity. Once the school had been selected for the Learning School Project, the development of this learning area was formalised. These schools were more likely to have formal support structures in place. In the second category, the issue of choosing a project arose only after the school had been selected for the Learning School Project. This created a layer of explanation, topic selection and choice of personnel within the project. In some schools, the project topic was negotiated quickly. In others it took some months to clarify. For these schools, issues around project topic and organisational consequences only emerged during the initial plenary sessions.

Most of the projects were classroom based. They focused mainly on developing a better atmosphere either in the school or in the classroom. Most of the intended outcomes involved attitudinal changes rather than specific attainment goals in learning. The projects described attitudes among students and assumed that if these were positive then student learning was better. For some schools, this was a conscious element in their choice of project. However, some schools made no reference to achievement targets although their goals were set in particular subject contexts. One school made no reference to any learning outcomes or classroom context.

In the main, the projects focused on first year students. A key concern for many of the schools was the transition from primary to secondary school. This was partly related to emotional, social and attitudinal issues. In other schools it focused particularly on the skill elements within particular subjects. Where non-first-year classes were used, they tended to have been included as part of convenience sampling, dependent on teacher interest rather than as part of a school strategy. In some schools, there was a definite link between classes in terms of mentoring younger students. The project types are summarised in Figure 4.

Overall Theme Schools Focus of Project Activity

Development of Support 2 Developing a “Buddy” system Structures Peer Tutoring in Reading Specific Group Learning 3 JCSP Gifted and Able (2) Extension Exercises Assessment for Learning 4 Impact of specific techniques

Irish Language 3 Students moving to Irish medium schools. Competence

Subject Focus 3 Activities in specific subject areas – Irish, maths, languages Figure 4. A summary of the project topics in the 15 schools.

11 Learning School Final Report

2.2.2. School Organisation

2.2.2.1. Membership

The organisation of the project involved four school layers  the project pair, who had responsibility for coordinating the project and who attended the project sessions in Mallow;  the project team within the school, comprising all those actively engaged in the project  the rest of the school staff  the school leadership team.

A review of the schools shows very different levels of engagement and liaison.  In some schools, the only engagement in the project was from the project pair. They took ownership of the organisation and delivery of the project within the school and attended all the plenary meetings. In some cases, their initial motivation for involvement was unclear. They had not attended the preliminary sessions and it was only after the school had been selected for the project that their involvement was negotiated.  In other schools, there was a definite “project team”. This group undertook to reflect together on the outcomes of their “action research”. The level of teamwork varied considerably. In some schools, a convenience sample of volunteer teachers was involved. The focus of the project (the range of subjects and class groups being dealt with) was dictated by who volunteered. In other schools, a conscious decision was made to focus on particular aspects (subject or class groupings). In effect, the decision prioritised one area of the school for project purposes. In this case, all teachers involved in the area were part of the team. In these schools, the project pair played a leadership role. They were the liaison between the Pilot Project group and the school team, and in some cases acted as liaison between the project group and the school management.  The involvement of the staff, outside the project team, tended to be very weak. As mentioned above, in some schools, there was no involvement outside the project pair or the project team. Where there was involvement, this varied from a spectator interest (there was a report from the participants about the project) to active interest. This latter occurred when the project was chosen within a whole school planning perspective and the rest of the staff were interested in the implications of the project for the future of the school.

In all schools, the project pair showed a dedicated commitment to the project. This grew over the period of the project and most pairs met deadlines, shared information and engaged with other schools during the plenary sessions.

A key issue in many of the schools was the involvement of management in the project. In some schools, either the Principal or Deputy Principal was involved in the project, in some cases being part of the project pair who attended external sessions. This gave

12 Learning School Final Report authority to the project within the school. In a limited number of schools, Year Heads or Programme Coordinators played a key role, which facilitated the development of the project among a number of different teachers. In other schools, the two teachers who had been assigned to the project were left to their own devices and had to negotiate each aspect of the project. Some of these teachers were junior members of staff and often felt that they had no “position” when it came promoting the project within the schools.

It would seem that team membership had an effect on the way the project was viewed in the school. This affected the dissemination of information to the rest of the staff not involved directly in the project. In some schools, no information was given to the rest of the staff until the project had been completed. In other schools, there were regular updates at staff meetings.

2.2.2.2. Resources

The key resource for this project, as defined by school participants, was time. In the main, the focus was on time to plan and reflect together as a team. In some schools, no provision was made for the project team or the coordinators. The project element of the activity was seen as extra to regular responsibilities and the participants had to negotiate their own time. In some of these schools, meetings were encouraged by the provision of sandwiches during lunch-time meetings. In other schools, time was allowed for the project team to meet. In some schools, this happened on a weekly basis. In others, team meetings were held at longer intervals, up to six weeks. This partly reflected other organisations structures within the school that facilitated staff meetings. When these were available, school management facilitated the use of available time by the team. In some schools management created time for the team. A major issue here was the provision of substitution cover for team meetings or for attendance at Mallow. When meetings were built into the time-table, this was not an issue. In some schools, the need for cover was actively supported by the staff, and this gave a positive profile to the project. In other schools, such cover was hard to negotiate and created a burden for management.

It was clear from feedback from the schools that the implications of supporting team development in project work only became apparent to some schools as the project progressed. In many instances there was a lack of appreciation of the personnel and resource implications involved in setting up a project that had a whole-school dimension. In some schools it was not until the final stages of the project, where the focus shifted from the project to the Learning School dimension, that any reflection on team work took place. In these schools, there tended to be an expectation that external resources should have been given to the schools to meet the requirements of the project, rather than that the school began to reflect on appropriate “normal” structures to encourage information sharing and reflection. Others schools were well used to project work and team development. In these schools, extensive resources were allocated to the team. A key aspect of this provision seems to have been the active engagement of a member of the senior management team in the project.

13 Learning School Final Report

2.2.3. Project Activity in Schools

2.2.3.1. Learning Activities

Learning activities in this project can be classified in two ways: those directed at the students to increase their learning and those directed at developing capacity among the teachers. These are summarised in Figure 5.

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Research Reading specific articles and reports related to a topic. Understanding the theoretical underpinning of the project Qualifications On-line qualifications in Gifted and Able students ICT qualifications on language learning Curriculum Analysis of current curriculum to outline must-should-could elements Meetings with primary teachers to understand curriculum and methodologies used. Instruction In-service on specific topics – Assessment for Learning, Language Teaching with ICT. Resource Production Handbook of Irish terminology for students. Handbook on Assessment for Learning for teachers Handbook of Language terms for school tours. Figure 5. Summary of learning activities undertaken by staff participants in the Learning School Project

In general, the activities directed at student learning reflected the creative application of teachers to specific aspects of learning, this section of the report focuses on the capacity building activities of teachers.

In some schools the learning activity was confined to the project team. In other schools, the opportunity was taken to offer in-service to the whole staff. This gave a different context to the project within the school, although some teachers did not apply the skills learnt immediately, in a formal way.

In a small number of schools, the project did not seem to be grounded in any explicit theory. Student interventions were designed by teachers based on their own intuitive knowledge and creativity.

2.2.3.2.. Data Collection and Analysis

At the plenary sessions that introduced the area of data collection, it was clear that most of the participants were unfamiliar with areas of data analysis. As a result, the data collected in the project could be termed “soft” data. This reflects the strong focus on attitudinal issues related to learning rather than achievement levels. In most cases some effort was made to triangulate data by using information from student and teacher perspectives.

14 Learning School Final Report

Data collected relied heavily on description and self-report. With students, the main data came from attitudinal questionnaires supported by interviews. In some schools this was done prior to, and after, the project and differences were noted. The focus was mainly on qualitative statements. In three schools, quantitative data was used. In one school, learning gains on standardised tests were calculated and analysed. In two schools, data from different year groups were compared. Two sets of data related to academic achievement. Another set related to absenteeism.

Teacher data collected, related to two main areas. The first was on teacher observation of student reactions. In this type of data, teachers reflected on how students responded to different initiatives in the classroom – pair or group work, comment-only marking, particular projects and activities. Typically these reflections focused on technical issues of implementation (resources available, class size, amount of time taken); student motivation and engagement (prior expectations; willingness to engage in projects); distribution of benefits (who benefited; ability to understand goals); consequence for other aspects of teaching (impact of time taken on total coverage; future use of techniques). In general, all initiatives recorded had some positive impact on students’ attitudes to learning. This was recorded in student comments and in teacher willingness to persevere with the methods or project.

The second focus of teacher observation was in terms of their interaction with other teachers. Where there was a focus on team building in the design, implementation and evaluation phases of the project, teachers reported positively on the opportunity for “professional discourse”. This led to shared understandings of what was being taught; to sharing different methodologies and resources and to a growth of confidence. For many teachers, this was a new experience and was much appreciated.

2.2.4. Learning Outcomes

Learning outcomes from the project can be classified mainly as student focused or teacher focused. In a small number of schools, outcomes can be related to school management.

2.2.4.1. Student Outcomes

For the most part, the way students engage positively with active learning methodologies was brought into sharp focus. In the four “Assessment for Learning” projects, students began to focus more on learning methods when “comment only” marking rather than grades was used. The greater focus on process had to be negotiated over time and the “both-and” aspect of different marking approaches was clarified. Comments were seen as being related to learning process and appropriate to homework and class work. Grades were seen as being related to achievement and appropriate to exams. Other benefits identified in relation to the learning process were the use of “stating objectives at beginning of class” and using “wait time” for questions.

15 Learning School Final Report

Two projects focused on developing support structures. In one project, older pupils acted as mentors in reading for younger pupils. This led to high gain levels in reading for the older pupil mentors. Having responsibility for others seemed to give them a greater sense of focus and enjoyment. It created a positive atmosphere for those “mentored”, although the time involved did not result in high gains in the reading skills of the younger pupils. The second project developed leadership skills in Transition Year students who then acted as mentors for first years. This led to a set of exercises that developed a social bonding for new students and gave a focus on responsibility to TY.

In the three Irish-medium schools, the emphasis was on producing a handbook of terminology for first year students. This proved to be highly beneficial and led to productivity in other areas with regard to language support. All schools reported an intuitive judgment of improved standards and “settling in”.

The other projects focused on classroom initiatives dealing with particular groups or subjects. The main focus was on differentiated learning, developing extension activities and using particular methodologies. Again, the main finding was on the way that students enjoyed active hands on practice, but how this needed to be structured to gain benefit. For weaker students, motivation was enhanced through affiliation, whereas for some more gifted students, the focus was on competition and achievement. In all projects, the relevance of classroom exercises for success came into sharp focus. For JCSP students, this was achieved through cross-curricular links. For gifted students and for language students the focus was on making links with other subjects or students in other schools.

2.2.4.2. Teacher Outcomes

In some areas, the focus of the project helped teachers understand the curriculum more. In a number of schools there was a focus on the primary school curriculum and methods in particular subjects and the implications for secondary school subjects. In other areas, teachers focused on the curriculum and analysed it in terms of ‘must-should-could’, devising different approaches to each of these areas.

In other instances, the focus was on instructional techniques. Some of these were related to classroom management techniques such as writing objectives, giving homework at beginning of class, questioning, pair work and group work. Other teachers devised creative approaches to particular subjects – Irish, history, maths, languages. These approaches involved developing in-service skills in ICT and making network links with external bodies. In two schools, teachers took specific on-line courses to update themselves on issues related to the project. In four of the schools there was a particular focus on assessment techniques. Teachers in these projects reflected on student motivation as well as the benefits of using particular instructional techniques. In general, the results pointed to the positive engagement of students rather than to particular learning “gains”.

16 Learning School Final Report

A key outcome for many of the participants was a greater sense of teamwork and professional discourse arising from the project. The context of the project gave the teachers an opportunity to speak to one another in a different way, and about issues that were not regular topics of conversation. This has led to creative resolutions to continue such dialogue into the future, either at subject department level or in terms of building on the project.

2.2.4.3. School Outcomes

Some of the schools reflected on the cost-benefits of this type of project. In general, it was felt that involvement in an externally moderated project helped keep focus and pace and avoided schools becoming side-tracked. Meeting with, and learning from other schools was a positive component for many of the participants. Often, the problem was conveying the benefit of the plenary sessions to the project team at school level, as only the project pair attended such meetings. Where management saw potential benefit to the project team and possible future benefit to the school, they put specific supports in place. Other schools had impressive support structures in place prior to engaging in the LSP.

Some schools had made a very definite attempt to capture the benefits of the project at school level. This included giving time for regular feedback to other staff. For other schools, the benefits of dissemination have not been realised.

2.2.4.4. Learning School Dimension

When schools were asked to reflect on the learning from their project in relation to the learning school concept, five levels of implication were noted.

 The school made no reference to future plans or how learning from the project might impact on the future.  The project team reflected on their own learning and were committed to applying that learning in a less formal way in the future. In some cases there was a hope that the benefits might be linked to others in the school.  The school was willing to repeat the project again, applying lessons learnt from project management. This meant giving time for a team to meet and plan during the course of the project. In effect, at the end of the formal project, the school now appreciated what was involved and saw how it could benefit from a formal approach.  The positive aspects of the project were noted. The school had definite plans to extend the project to other areas (either other subjects or other class groups) in the following year. In some schools, definite support structures were being put in place, including in-service, to help teachers design for the future.  The school reflected on the systemic implications of their project. This encouraged them to use data from the project as part of the SDP cycle in the school. They also reflected on disseminating the project to other schools and on the support implications for these schools.

17 Learning School Final Report

2.3. PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS

During the course of the project, regular feedback was taken from the participants. This was done both informally and formally. On a formal level, participants completed evaluation sheets after each of the plenary sessions. The comments on these were generally positive. Participants enjoyed the opportunity to meet with other schools. In general, each of the individual presentations got high marks as did the physical arrangements for participants.

This feedback was followed by informal feedback during the visits to the schools. During these sessions opportunities were taken to discuss issues of particular interest to the individual schools and their reactions to the pilot project. This feedback, along with observations, guided the work of the Design Team.

A formal evaluation was undertaken with school leadership teams. In the design of this evaluation, special attention was paid to schools whose leaders did not attend the plenary sessions. In general, the report of these leaders was positive towards the project. However, it was clear that many of these leaders also saw the project as a discrete activity, and they were not actively engaged in linking it to a “learning school dimension” and were more likely to comment upon the lack of DES funding for the project from this source. Where principals or deputy principals were in touch with the project team, however, they were generally positive about the effect involvement in the project was having on the team members.

Formal evaluation was also undertaken with the participants at the end of the project. Participants gave a written response to a series of open-ended questions and took part in focus group reflections at the showcase event Sample responses are given below:

Plenary Sessions Support Team Visits  I enjoyed the sessions in Mallow. It was helpful to  Kept pace in the project meet other participants. I felt that things were clarified  Kept me focused, energised me and were always on with every session. It became less of a chore and hand to offer encouragement. enabled me to focus on something that I had been  The visits clarified the growing project for me. thinking about for a while.  They were very responsive and listened carefully to  Discussion with and seeing what was going on in other the needs that we wanted to address. schools  I found the specific advice that related to our project  Specific inputs: Belbin: Biggs: Data Gathering: invaluable, whether it was clarifying concerns or Gantt Chart: Reporting Template: Triangulation: the sending on additional information. The teachers in enthusiasm and professionalism of the team. the school also had a full in-service.  A school is a universe unto itself with its own culture  When the support staff came into the school and and ways of doing things. It was a revelation to see worked with the group. They were so supportive, how other schools operate. always validating your input, never watching the  The sharing sessions were best when we were with a clock and always ready with constructive positive school that had a similar project to ourselves. help and suggestions. They seemed really interested  These sessions were very helpful once the focus of the themselves in the work that was being done. project was decided. We were able to plan ahead and devise strategies to attain our objectives.

18 Learning School Final Report

2.4. CONCLUSIONS

The schools clearly benefited from their participation in the project. For most schools, the benefits lay in the networking aspect of the project, where they met like-minded teachers from other schools. The project became a stimulus for action and reflection within the schools. The content focus of the project was beneficial in its own right to all the participants. The main challenge for the Learning School Project was to move from a “project-centred” approach to establishing a “culture” of learning.

The extent to which the school developed as a Learning School depended to a large extent on two things – the infrastructure within the school to support project work and the support of management for the project. In schools that had developed an infrastructure for project work the smooth running of the project itself was obvious. The participants found it reasonably easy to find time to plan and discuss the project and to reflect on outcomes. This was built into the culture and practice of the school. In other schools, involvement in a project was something new. Participation in the project was a journey of discovery. Participants were learning a new language around project management and data collection. To a large extent the energy of the participants in these schools was taken up in completing the project as a coherent piece of work. It was only at the end of the project that they were ready to engage in a wider reflection relating to the Learning School.

Leadership involvement in the project had a major impact on the dissemination of learning from the project. When leaders were not involved, then the project tended to be seen as the domain of the participants only, and these engaged on a volunteer or convenience basis. Participants drew benefit from their engagement and sought to apply the lessons learnt to future work. Often, they had little opportunity to reflect in a practical way on how the project might be applied in other areas of school life, or what the implications were for school culture. When senior management (Principal, Deputy or Year Head) was involved in the project, it tended to have a status with the rest of the staff. It meant that the leader was able to help the staff members reflect on issues arising beyond the project and to plan accordingly. It some schools there were definite plans to extend the learning from this project to other areas of school life.

19 Learning School Final Report

3. PROJECT COORDINATION

3.1. THE DESIGN TEAM

The design team has been responsible, under the direction of the Steering Committee, for the design and delivery of the support element of the project with schools.

3.1.1. Membership

Membership of the design team was drawn from the different support services and from the directors of the Education Centres. A number of people attended design team meetings who were not directly involved in the delivery of the project.

The initial focus of membership was on the inclusive representation of the different groups, rather than on integrating named personnel into the team. As a result, personnel changed frequently, and it was difficult to build a sense of team. When individuals attended meetings, it was more in terms of informing themselves so as to make a contribution at the plenary sessions, rather than as part of a commitment to a team. This gave a strong expectation of a “performance” orientation for individuals. In the early stages of the project, some presentation tasks were seen as assigned to a support service. The task was eventually carried out by someone who had not attended the design team meeting, but was briefed “second-hand” by someone who had.

This dynamic reflected the high time commitment of design team members within their own service, and often the unforeseen demands that can be made on them. During the project, the need for individual commitment to the design team became clear. This was addressed with the different services, giving rise to a highly committed core group who were then charged with delivery.

A second factor that affected membership of the design team was the time line of the project, which extended over two school years. Personnel within the support services, and indeed within the Education Centre network, changed during that time. This affected continuity. However, this type of “attrition” is a normal part of group membership and, because of the warning involved, was well handled.

In future projects, the idea of teamwork at the design and delivery level needs to be examined carefully. One of the roles of the design team is to model the project management dynamic by the way it coordinates the work between the schools. It is important that participants see the design team as a team, rather than as individuals who turn up for isolated “performances”. A key issue in soliciting the commitment of support services to this type of project will be to ensure that sufficient allocation of time is given to individuals to attend team meetings.

The collaboration between those who did attend the team meetings had been very strong. Most exercises had been presented by representatives from at least two different services and/or an Education Centre.

20 Learning School Final Report

3.1.2. Skills

The skills individuals brought with them were focused mainly on the content element of the project, rather than on the meta-skills of project management, data collection and data analysis. The time factor involved in the team did not allow for in-service work with the team members in these skills. Training for team members was often taking place at the same time as training for participants, and they were then meant to support the participants in school. In future projects, more time needs to be given to ensure that team members have the skills required. In this project, the time factor meant that the Academic Advisor became more involved in delivery in particular areas such as data collection and analysis rather than in empowering the team.

The expertise that the individual members brought to their support roles in the schools was very impressive. This engendered a sense of confidence in the schools that they would have the technical support necessary to focus their project in unfamiliar territory. To a large extent, the quality of interaction between the participants at general sessions reflected the confidence of the schools in the team of advisors.

3.2. THE WORK WITH SCHOOLS

The design team supported schools in three ways:  working with the project “pair” designated by each school, both in the school but particularly in sessions organised for all schools.  working with school teams – teachers directly involved in the project in the school. This was done mainly through school visits.  supporting the school by giving in-service sessions related to the focus area of the project.

In general, the work of the design team with the schools involved five main goals.

3.2.1. To develop awareness of what it means to be a learning school This goal was achieved mainly through input at the plenary sessions. The aim was to stimulate discussion on worthwhile topics, to clarify the purpose of the in-school project and to help schools select and design their project.

In the initial stage of the project there was a strong emphasis on the project itself. Schools were concerned with choosing a “doable” project. Many schools needed considerable help in defining their project. The design team put a strong emphasis on this element of the project in the design phase. In the implementation phase, the emphasis shifted to reflection on the culture of learning. This latter was less successful.

21 Learning School Final Report

3.2.2. To give training in key elements of project management This goal was promoted through the work of the plenary sessions. This included:  project design and management – the Gantt chart  team dynamics and team building  the use of reflective diaries  data collection and analysis  self-evaluation on learning  reporting templates

There was high commitment from the participating schools to all aspects of the project. This had been evidenced from the quality of participation at plenary sessions and the level of activity in the schools. The intensity of activity had been observed within the schools on visits, and was also evident in the reporting by schools at plenary sessions. The schools had been very positively disposed to the elements of the project, even when some of the concepts or requirements were quite new to them. For some schools the importance of issues such as project planning and data collection only became apparent when it came to writing up the project.

3.2.3. To give active support in the content area of the project This was achieved through a series of support visits to the project team in each school. In some instances, there had been need for strong interventions to help schools new to the idea of project work, to focus on realistic needs. In other cases, the support services had given focused in-service in the school in an area related to the project. This had the effect of building capacity for the project itself. In other schools, the purpose of the visit was to support the project team in their application of well-developed skills.

This activity was well received by the schools. They learned to take initiatives in requesting help, and the support services were conscious of empowering the schools to provide much of the training and reflection from with the school itself. The approach has modelled empowerment rather than dependence. In some schools, the in-service provided was for the whole staff. This gave the project a high profile and created an interested in its progress among teachers not directly involved.

3.2.4. To develop a reflective self-evaluation process for participants This goal involved moving participants to reflect on and evaluate the “learning school” dimension as opposed to the “project learning” dimension. This became the focus of the plenary sessions from September 2007 through 2008. The image used was harvesting the results of the project. Part of this process involved the use of a reflective diary. Two formats were used. The first looked at descriptive elements. The second focused on more evaluative entries.

The reflective diary proved a mixed asset. For some it never got beyond a cryptic description of meetings. For others, it incorporated detailed reflections on learning events for students and for teachers. For some participants, the tension between using the reflective diary as a personal tool and as part of the corporate aspect of the project was not resolved. In some cases, the benefits of the diary only became clear at the write-

22 Learning School Final Report up stage, when they discovered that data was missing for the required reflection on the learning school. For others, the time involved and the need to cultivate a habit of “journaling” was too much.

3.2.5. Provide and facilitate a sense of teamwork and community This goal was promoted in the plenary sessions. The design of these sessions gave a balance between direct input, eliciting experience and sharing on school progress. This was reinforced by visits to individual schools and meeting with the project team where possible. A key function here was to validate the teams’ experiences.

There is a very positive spirit of collaboration between schools on the plenary sessions. This has been facilitated by the fact that the focus of projects in a number of schools has been the same. This has allowed some schools to collaborate and learning from one another in very specific ways. Both the common ground and the differences between the schools has had a positive effect in stimulating reflection and learning. Where schools focused on different areas, sharing of contextual information as well as technical information with regard to the project has promoted a spirit of openness and collaboration.

3.3. THE ROLE OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISOR

Shortly before the project was publicised to the schools, the Steering Committee appointed an Academic Advisor to work with the Design Team. The role was described in terms of working with the Design Team, giving some input to the project members and encompassed writing evaluative reports.

The Academic Advisor brought experience of working on similar type projects and also had particular expertise in the area of research methods and data analysis. This proved to be an important element in the design of the project, and complemented the practical skills that the team members brought to helping with the content area of school projects.

Because of the difficulties involved in the Design Team membership, and also finding time for team-building at that level, the Academic Advisor played a major role in the presentations to participants. It would perhaps have been better had more of these presentations been done by the support services, thus showing the research element as an integral part of their work, rather than as something “extra” brought from a university perspective.

3.4. DESIGN TEAM EVALUATIONS

In returns from a formal questionnaire evaluation at the end of the project, Design Team members stated that the main benefits they gained from the Project were:  a greater sense of colleagueship with members of other services  a greater appreciation of the dynamics of project management

23 Learning School Final Report

 a more holistic sense of what happens in development work in schools. meeting teachers in their “habitats” was an important aspect of the project, and it differed from “whole school interventions” or working with individual subject departments  in visiting schools, there was a definite focus for reflection and evaluation. in some instances this was helpful in planning future developments

A number of the team commented on the problem of consistency of attendance at meetings. Others commented on the problem of finding meeting time that was independent of the plenary sessions. A number of meetings were held just prior to the plenary sessions. The time given to reporting on what was happening in schools was important, but it also made for very constrained meetings.

Many of the team had doubts as to the extent to which the Learning School dimension of the project became embedded in the work. Many felt that there was a focus on the project as a product rather than a process. They felt that this was related to the skill and confidence of the participants, and they felt that at the end of the project, many of the participants had grown in appreciation of what might have developed at this level, while benefiting from the specific content of the project itself.

24 Learning School Final Report

4. OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. INVOLVEMENT

4.1.1. The Education Centres

The Learning School Project was designed as a regional project involving four Education Centres. This provided a major opportunity for sharing and collaboration between the Centres. It allowed for great diversity of experience and contexts and this had the potential to provide rich data from the project. There was a high level of commitment to the project’s goals on the part of each of the Centres, and these were clearly linked to the strategic plans of each of the Centres. The Centres had support structures in place for the schools attached to them and were generous in the support they gave.

The uptake from the schools attached to the different Centres was quite varied. It meant that some Centre directors were very involved, and others had little involvement. These latter gradually withdrew from active participation in Design Team work, although they kept a watchful and supportive eye on developments.

Ensuring representation from each of the Centres, along with representation from the support services, created a major strain on organising meetings. Initially, strong emphasis was placed on inclusion and collaboration. In the light of experience, greater stress had to be put on representation and effectiveness.

4.1.2. The Support Services

The Learning School Project provided a unique opportunity for collaboration between different support services in the design and delivery of the project. By working together at Design Team sessions, Plenary Presentations / Workshops, visiting schools and providing in-service support, the project provided learning opportunities for the various support service members:  to appreciate the work of other services  to see the systemic aspects of school development  to learn about project management and action research

The project topics chosen by the schools did not always correspond to the area of expertise of the services. In fact, the focus of interest was highly skewed to the classroom, with some applications to Special Education Needs and School Planning issues.

Ensuring continuity of presence in personnel from each of the Support Services was a major issue for the teamwork dimension of the Design Team. Consistency of attendance became an important aspect of the quality of information flow within the project, both in terms of the values being promoted with the participants, and also in the way feedback was communicated from school visits.

25 Learning School Final Report

4.1.3. Schools The project provided a unique opportunity for schools to engage in a regional project and to network with other schools around the area of learning. In general, they benefited from hearing of different approaches to the support of learning – creating a positive school environment, specific techniques of teaching and assessment and of the generation of resources.

As outlined in 2.1.2 An open invitation to participate was extended to all schools in the region. In some cases, schools had no prior experience of Project Management. When they volunteered for the project, they did not seem to realise the resources needed for team-building and support. Some of these schools required considerable help in choosing a project topic, and even with that help, it was difficult to make the connection between the project content and the Learning School dimension.

4.2. LEARNING SCHOOL PROJECT OUTCOMES

At the outset, the Learning School Project was conceptualised as an action research project that would enable participants, organisers and policy makers to reflect together on the experience and implications of this new mindset.

4.2.1. Aims of the Project

The Project had the following specific aims:  to develop an increased awareness of what constitutes a learning school  to support school-based activities promoting the ongoing development of the learning school  to enhance the capacity of individual teachers to contribute to the learning school  to nurture teacher leadership in schools

To a large extent, these aims were realised. Throughout the project, there was a growing sense among the Design Team and the Participants of moving beyond the specifics of completing a project to looking at the implications for the school. This was achieved through the specific exercises and formats proposed for the project and also through the networking provided by the context of working in an external project. The fact that schools were in different places with regard to implementing the Learning School ideal provided both challenge and affirmation.

The Design Team provided support in schools where needed relating to both the content of the project and to project management. This was appreciated by the participants as is evident in their feedback. Perhaps the greatest learning took place in the area of Project Management and data collection.

Individual participants developed their capacity as teachers, researchers and project managers. This was evident in the quality of their commitment and their work throughout the project. This was evident also in the submitted projects and in the

26 Learning School Final Report

Showcase event where the participants spoke about their projects. Leading the project provided opportunities for some teachers to experience a leadership role with their peers.

4.2.2. Understanding of the Learning School

These three elements of the Learning School, as promoted by the Project, were evident throughout the project.

Through the use of reflective diaries and by having a clear focus on gathering evidence, the participants committed themselves to a process of continuing reflection and inquiry. This was undertaken on an individual basis as well as a team exercise. Team reflection was often very evident between the project pair, and in some cases among the project team in the school. In this area, it is difficult to determine whether the engagement in reflection was seen as a product (a requirement of involvement in the project) or as a process which would benefit the individual. Participants certainly kept good records of their involvement. However, their use of the reflections in their presentation of the project was not extensive.

The project requirements stipulated that the participants to engage in review and self- evaluation. This was promoted at the plenary sessions as well as being a requirement for project presentation. Much of the evaluation that was used tended to be intuitive rather than formal. Further training is required to help participants use data in a more formal way.

The project content involved an element of in-service for all participants. In some cases, this was extended beyond to the project team and to the whole school. Once the school project was named, the participants developed a clear idea of what developmental support was needed. This was provided. Again, the key issue here is whether this development was seen in “product” terms, related to this project, or in “process” terms, related to ongoing development. This varied across the schools.

4.2.3. Benefits

As outlined in 1.1, it was hoped that the main benefits of the completed project would be seen in:  The Empowerment of Individual Learners. It was hoped that the schools would have a greater appreciation of the learning dynamic and develop flexible approaches to learning situations. It is clear from the feedback from individual participants that they gained from the project. Most reported learning about teaching and also gaining confidence for the future. The evidence for this

27 Learning School Final Report

empowerment tended to be confined to narrow elements of school life. In general, it focused on classroom activity or peer interaction.  Collegiality. Feedback from the participation indicated a growth in collegiality. At school level, this was evident in a greater commitment to collaboration and teamwork in promoting learning in the classroom and in peer support structures among teachers. Teachers indicated a better quality of professional conversation among the project team. There was also a greater sense of collegiality at a regional level, as participants networked with those from other schools. This gave a deeper sense of the profession of teaching and the varied ways in which teachers promote learning.  Institutional Responsiveness. It was hoped that one of the benefits of the project would be that schools would identify new approaches to promoting and supporting learners. This would be reflected in assessment and reporting protocols in the classroom and in policies for continuous professional development. This was perhaps the weakest element of the project. Certainly, individual teachers were quite responsive and creative during the project and developed new approaches to both teaching and assessment. There was no evidence that this led to institutional responses, although some schools have plans to explore implications further.

4.3. ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES

During the project, a number of key issues emerged that seem to impact on the success of the Learning School dimension.

The infrastructure of the school with regard to school planning and the experience of working on projects has a major impact on the success of the Learning School dimension. When the context is well developed, any individual project can be situated within the overall aims of the school. The link between the project and other learning outcomes is easy to track. This promotes a greater sense of connection for those involved in the project and it allows others to understand the project’s aims at a deeper level. The state of readiness of the school has major implications for the level and nature of support needed during this type of project. Indeed, if the Learning School concept is to become a priority within the system, targeting schools to bring their infrastructure up to a level that will allow a project approach be successful, may well be a necessity.

Involvement of senior management in the project in school is important to its success. This has a symbolic power in that it signals the importance of the project at a school level. It also ensures good communication with regard to resources and dissemination. Especially with young teachers, or teachers new to a school, the active support of management gives confidence. It also helps all participants engage in ongoing planning for their personal and professional development. This has implications for the way such projects are promoted in schools. It may be necessary to set a minimum level of resource support, especially around the school project team, at the outset of the project. Whereas this could not have been done at the start of this project, experience has taught the importance of this level of engagement.

28 Learning School Final Report

As well as promoting teamwork in schools, a project such as this must also plan to invest in the Design Team. When colleagues from the various support services and the Education Centres come together, they must be supported and empowered. A key element of the success of the design and delivery of the project is the teamwork at this level. Two important areas arose during the project – consistency of membership and skill development around Project Management. Colleagues brought very important skills from their service area to the support of the schools. Frequently, project management was not part of the approach of the particular service. This may need to be addressed in the support of a Design Team.

4.4. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Future Projects of this nature might be better organised between schools under the remit of a single Education Centre. This would hold the benefit of networking for the participating schools. It would make for a simpler management structure.

B. The benefits of collaboration between services should be maintained. The different perspectives on school intervention were a definite bonus in the design and delivery of the project.

C. A project such as the Learning School Project needs to invest in the development of the teamwork aspect of the Design Team. This includes ensuring release of individuals to attend all team meetings and up-skilling the individuals in Project Management, especially around the area of data collection and analysis. Team members need to conceptualise their engagement in terms of accompaniment rather than performance – they accompany their colleagues on the Design Team and accompany the participants.

D. Thought might be given to narrowing the focus of the projects in the schools so that greater learning can take place between the schools focussing on a particular topic. For instance, looking at the Multicultural Dimension of the Learning School would mean that schools would design a project around multiculturalism, and reflect on the Learning School implications. Some schools might focus on curriculum issues, others on transition issues, others on extra-curricular or co- curricular issues. The topic would give opportunities for schools to design their own unique approach, and there would be a stronger base for common reflection.

E. Schools need to have an infrastructure of planning in place if individual projects are to lead to a deeper appreciation of the Learning School dimension. The project needs to be connected to the wider learning goals of the school. Investment in developing this aspect of the school may be important, and may even require the investment of specific resources in the school.

F. The relationship between the school project team and the senior management of the school is very important. Making some base-line demands may be an important condition for school participation.