Middle leading practices are ecologically arranged with other practices

This blog presents examples of what practices look like empirically for the work of middle leaders facilitating site based education.

The question of the relationships that exist between practices is crucial for understanding the particularity of practices as they exist in sites, since the effects and consequences of one practice can shape other practices. These relationships need to be shown empirically. Empirically discovered relationships between practices that relate to each other in social sites can be theorised as “ecologies of practices” (Kemmis et al., 2012, 2014). The theory of the ecologies of practices (Kemmis et al., 2012) is an extension of the theory of practice architectures and provides an resource to describe the interconnections between the cultural and linguistic, material and moral, social and political consequences of practices. 

Adapted from Table 1: Ecologies of practices - Ecological principles (Kemmis, Edwards-Groves, Wilkinson & Hardy, 2010).

Ecological principles	If practices are living things and ecologies of practices are living systems, then …	Middle leading practices as connected to other practices
Networks	Practices derive their essential properties and their existence from their relationships with other practices.	Middle leading practices are social practices that enable teachers to participate actively (with initiative, conviction, confidence) and work collaboratively in groups. These do not simply reveal traces of being shaped by previous experiences in professional development practices; these practices (professional learning, teacher leading and facilitating) are both strengthened and connected to one another in the networks of practices observed across as well as within particular sites of practice.
Nested systems	Different levels and networks of practice are nested within one another.	Often the practices of the middle leaders often are nested within the leading practices of the local sites; middle leading practices, in turn, are nested within the teaching practices of the school.
Interdependence	Practices are dependent on one another in an ecology of practices as are ecologies of practices.	Some practices – particular middle leading practices – exist in relationships of interdependence, in which the outcomes of one practice (participating in PD) are inputs to other practices (new teaching practices). These ecologically connected practices are evident in the way that the practices of teaching and learning in classrooms can sometimes be dependent on one another, or in the way in which a particular practice of professional learning might be dependent on the particular middle leading practices and school leadership practices that exist in the school.
Diversity	An ecology of practices includes many different practices with overlapping ecological functions that can partially replace one another.	Middle leaders are demonstrably responsive to the site, the circumstances, the needs and the participants in particular sites.
Cycles	Some (particular) kinds of matter (or in education – practice architectures, activities, orders or arrangements) cycle through practices or ecologies of practices – for example, as in a food chain.	The ecological principle of cycles distinctively emerges in the way the sayings, doings and relatings ‘hang together’; these cycle through and are reproduced from the leading practices to the teaching practices. To illustrate, many teachers recognise that they take on the same interactive and language structures or physical set-ups as they had experienced in their professional learning facilitated by the MLs.
Flows	Energy flows through an ecology of practices and the practices within it, being transformed from one kind of energy to another (in the way that solar energy is converted into chemical energy by photosynthesis) and eventually being dissipated.	Flows can be empirically identified in the ways particular practices, like energy, flow through other practices and practices related to it. That is middle leading practices travel across practices associated with their facilitation of teacher professional development. For example, ideas and practices concerning ‘challenging participants’, designing peer group visits, and developing collaborative relationships flow into new occasions of the practice that secure comprehensibility of, and continuity and connectedness in collegial learning communities for the people involved.
Development	Practices and ecologies of practices develop through stages.	As part of an ecology of practices, development occurs when practitioners’ knowledge, skill and responsibility becomes more familiar with a practice and more expert or accomplished in it (often the middle leader). From teacher’s perspective, ways of working for the good of students are aligned with a view that professional learning is not only about responsibility for self but also for the learning and development of others.
Dynamic balance	An ecology of practices regulates itself through processes of self-organisation, and (up to breaking point) maintains its continuity in relation to internal and outside pressures.	For transformation (via PL practices led by MLs) there needs to be a dynamic balance between external conditions (what individual practitioners encounter in the practice and the sites of practice) and internal conditions (what individual practitioners brings to the practice) and reciprocity of a kind which simultaneously merges external and internal conditions for growth and change.

The complexity of the nature and effect of professional learning practices cannot be understated. However, the ecologies of practices perspective offer us a way to capture the complexities of the practices of professional learning and teacher leading. We contend that there is an empirical ecological connection between practices in schools, that there is an interdependent ecological relationship that exists between different practices in schools.

Ecologies of middle leading practices

In this post we propose an interrelationship between the ways in which practices in the Education Complex (professional learning, teaching, leading, researching and student learning) can be understood as related in ecologies of practices. For us, this is an empirical question just as it is a metaphorical one. Our data from our international research project directs us to the traceable interconnectivities between these practices in the Education Complex. We take the Education complex to mean the all-encompassing whole of the kinds of practices that make up the distinctive dimensions of educational work.

Initially, the work of Kemmis, Edwards-Groves, Wilkinson and Hardy (2010) explicitly aligned with Capra’s (2005) eight principles of ecology to demonstrate empirically how practices can be understood as relating to one another within ecologies of practices.  The following table presents a summarised description of practices as they can be understood in terms of the relationships and interrelationships that exist in education and in terms of how these are connected ecologically. For instance our research has shown how education practices (like professional learning), which exists in real situations, shape and are shaped by other education practices (like teaching and leading) when each creates enabling and constraining conditions for the others; these are mutually sustaining when together they form an ecology of practices existing in a dynamic ecological balance.

Table 1: Ecologies of practices - Ecological principles (Kemmis, Edwards-Groves, Wilkinson & Hardy, 2010).

Ecological principles	If practices are living things and ecologies of practices are living systems, then …
Networks	Practices derive their essential properties and their existence from their relationships with other practices.
Nested systems	Different levels and networks of practice are nested within one another.
Interdependence	Practices are dependent on one another in an ecology of practices as are ecologies of practices.
Diversity	An ecology of practices includes many different practices with overlapping ecological functions that can partially replace one another.
Cycles	Some (particular) kinds of matter (or in education – practice architectures, activities, orders or arrangements) cycle through practices or ecologies of practices – for example, as in a food chain.
Flows	Energy flows through an ecology of practices and the practices within it, being transformed from one kind of energy to another (in the way that solar energy is converted into chemical energy by photosynthesis) and eventually being dissipated.
Development	Practices and ecologies of practices develop through stages.
Dynamic balance	An ecology of practices regulates itself through processes of self-organisation, and (up to breaking point) maintains its continuity in relation to internal and outside pressures.

According to Kemmis et al. (2010), from an ecologies of practices perspective, when the external or internal conditions in sites of practice are not hospitable (supportive or nourishing as in a biological nichè) then the other parts of the complex of practices may be threatened and the changing of practices may not be sustainable or even possible. So, understanding the principles of ecologies of practices is important for understanding middle leading practices because when one practice in an ecology of practices becomes developed and strengthened – for example through professional learning – the other parts of the complex of practices may also be developed and strengthened - for example leading or teaching.

The next post will illustrate what this looks like empirically for the work of middle leaders facilitating site based education.

 References:

Capra, Fritjof. (2005). Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for sustainability. In Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow (Eds.) pp.18-29 Ecological Literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world. San Francisco: Sierra Book Club Books.

Kemmis, S., Edwards-Groves, C., Wilkinson, J., & Hardy, I. (2012). Ecologies of practices: Learning practices. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Learning Practice.  Dordrecht: Springer.

Middle leading ecologically arranged with other practices

This post is the first in a series that focuses on the ways in which the practices of middle leading are ecologically arranged with other practices in schools. To introduce this concept, we turn to the theory of ecologies of practices. This theory seeks to understand the ways in which practices are interconnected with other practices in what is described as the “Education Complex of Practices”. The Education Complex of Practices includes leadership, professional learning, teaching students learning and researching and evaluation. Each of these practices does not exist or evolve in isolation from one another; each influences as is influenced by the other. The theory of ecologies of practices is useful for understanding the practices of middle leading because these are entangled in the leading, the professional learning, the teaching, student learning and evaluation practices that occur in schools.  Understanding their role as it pertains to ecologies is critical because the development of quality educational outcomes - the core business of learning and teaching in schooling – often rests with the middle leader whose who have greatest potential to impact student learning, teacher learning and development. Next week we will focus more directly on the notion of ecologies of practices.

The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading (cont.)

In the last three posts (11-13) we have talked about how middle leading practices are enabled or constrained by certain arrangements. In this post we want to be more explicit and give an example from a study carried out in preschools in Sweden (being published very soon) where 14 middle leaders led their colleagues in systematic quality work. The material-economic arrangements enabling this to happen are the most obvious as all personnel get two hours a month to participate in the communicative space organised by the middle leaders. In turn, the middle leaders get four hours a week, which enables them to plan, conduct and reflect on the meetings. However, there are some constraints as well. Some principals in the district complain about supporting this work and want to use the time for other purposes. But the district leader and the middle leaders have all been arguing to keep these communicative spaces as they found them important as a way to have time to come together in conversations to share and reflect over their work with the students. Observing these conversations it is obvious they are not without contradiction. The people who meet do not always think the same way about different activities, which is fine, but in a communicative space one goal is to reach unforced consensus. The point is not to thoughtlessly agree, but rather to argue and to listen to each other’s views. This is expressed well by Kemmis, Mc Taggart and Nixon (2014) in the following quote:

Communicative action is that kind of action we take when we engage one another in genuine, open dialogue or (better) conversation. Put more precisely—and this will serve as a definition of communicative action—people engage in communicative action when they make a conscious and deliberate effort to reach (a) intersubjective agreement about the ideas and language they use among participants as a basis for (b) mutual understanding of one another’s points of view in order to reach (c) unforced consensus about what to do in their particular situation. (p. 35)

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer

Rönnerman, K., Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2015 forthcoming). Opening up communicative spaces about quality in early childhood education through middle leadership practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policies.

Post 13: The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading (cont.)

In the last post we explained the three dimensions of practice architectures that enable and constrain a practice. In doing this we chose to explain cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political each at a time by separating them from one another. This can just be done analytically and as a way to grasp what they actually mean in relation to enabling and constraining a practice. However, in the blog it is obvious they are not separable in action. It is easy to read how the sayings also effect the doings and relatings.

To go a step further, the theory of practice architectures talks about how the cultural-discursive arrangements occur in semantic space, in the medium of language; the material-economic arrangements occur in physical space-time in the medium of activity or work; and, the social-political arrangements occur in social space in them medium of solidarity and power.

These three spaces overlap one another and to understand middle leaders’ practices we can imagine the need of a communicative space for new forms of discourse, activities and relating as part of the process of change in schools. In an article accepted for publication (Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2015), that reports on a study where early childhood teachers met regularly in discussion their on-going quality work, the results show that communicative spaces enable teachers to engage in learning-focused meaning making activities connected to the curriculum. It also reveals the practice architectures that enabled the middle leader to take up the responsibility of leading colleagues.

Rönnerman, K., ,Edwards-Groves, C. & Grootenboer, P. (2015 forthcoming). Opening up communicative spaces about quality in early childhood education through middle leadership practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policies.

The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading

In our last blog we presented the arrangements of practice architectures that enable and constrain a practice. In this post we will go into more detail what this means for a practice and specifically a practice of middle leading. The three arrangements; cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political, can be viewed on different levels surrounding the practice in focus. To illustrate the practice of middle leading, consider a middle leader facilitating her colleagues in a preschool with the aim of raising the quality of the students’ learning and development. How her work is enabled and constrained through the practice architectures can be viewed in the following ways:

Cultural-Discursive arrangements - is about how you talk about the students’ development and learning. The discourses can be strong from a political level and can constrain the conversations among the teachers and middle leader as they might feel they have to use the right words (being politically correct or prescribed). On the other hand the middle leader might see this as enabling the practice in striving for a joint and collective language.

Material-Economic arrangements – has to do with the activity - how and where the middle leader can meet her colleagues to be able to facilitate their dialogues. To enable the practice to happen the middle leader needs time to plan the meeting beforehand and to summarise the meeting afterwards. Both the middle leader and all the teachers taking part in the meeting need time to be present. They all also need a room for their meeting and maybe other facilities (such as computers, documents papers, etc.) to discuss their on-going quality work. To make this possible this has to be discussed with the principal who can make it happen by providing time and recourses for the middle leader and the teachers to meet.

Social-Political arrangements – is about the relatings to human and artefacts. When the middle leader meets a group of teachers, professional relations are enabled among the teachers and the middle-leader through dialogue. Furthermore in the discussion there are relatings to the curriculum and other documents relevant to in the discussions as well as to other things in the site where the meeting takes place.

However in the practice of middle leading these arrangements are bundled together and not separated which we will come back to in the coming post next week.  

The Practice Architectures of Middle Leading

During August our blog posts concentrated on the practice of Middle Leading. Now we will zoom out from the practice itself and talk about the conditions under which the practice of Middle Leading occur. We will use the theory of Practice Architectures to be able to show how a practice is prefigured by certain arrangements (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). But within this theory these arrangements do not determine the practice, but rather they enable and constrain the practice. Within the theory of Practice Architectures there are three kinds of arrangements:

·       the characteristic cultural-discursive arrangements of the practice. These exist in the medium of language in the dimension of semantic space and orient to the distinctiveness of language and discourses used in and about middle leading practices. Cultural-discursive arrangements enable and constrain the ‘sayings’ characteristic of the practice; for example, determining what it is relevant to say, or – especially – what language or specialist discourse is appropriate for describing, interpreting, justifying middle leading  practice;

·       the characteristic material-economic arrangements of the practice. They exist in the medium of activity and work in the dimension of physical space-time and orient to the characteristic kinds of activities or work that is done in the course middle leading practices. Material-economic arrangements enable and constrain the ‘doings’ characteristic or typical middle leading practice; for example, in the physical set-ups of staff meetings or professional development days and in the particular activity systems in an organization; and,

·       the characteristic social-political arrangements of the practice. These exist in the medium of power and solidarity in the dimension of social space and orient to the characteristic patterns of relationships between people and between people and non-human objects that occur in middle leading practices. Social-political arrangements enable and constrain the ‘relatings’ characteristic of the practice; for example the relationship between the principal and the middle leader, or between middle leaders and teachers in collegial groups. (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). In our next post we will continue to delve deeper in these dimensions and give example of how they work in middle leading practices.

Kemmis, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating Praxis in Practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp.37-62). Rotterdam: Sense.