International Journal of Educational ManagementStructural barriers: redesigning schools to create learning organizationsEbrahim Randeree

Article information:To cite this document:Ebrahim Randeree, (2006),"Structural barriers: redesigning schools to create learning organizations",International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 397 - 404Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540610676458

Downloaded on: 16 October 2014, At: 01:58 (PT)References: this document contains references to 17 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1073 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Georgia Pashiardis, (2008),"Toward a knowledge base for school climate in Cyprus's schools", InternationalJournal of Educational Management, Vol. 22 Iss 5 pp. 399-416Professor Tobias Feldhoff, Professor Falk Radisch and Dr Eckhard Klieme, Ronald H. Heck, PhilipHallinger, (2014),"Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning", Journalof Educational Administration, Vol. 52 Iss 5 pp. 653-681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0097Rose M. Ylimaki, David Gurr, Lawrie Drysdale, Jeffrey V. Bennett, (2009),"Successful school principals inAustralia and the US: Findings from an international study", International Perspectives on Education andSociety, Vol. 11 pp. 273-301

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173534 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Structural barriers: redesigningschools to create learning

organizationsEbrahim Randeree

State University of New York at Buffalo, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on schools and address the structural dimensions ofthe organization as well as the hierarchical design of information flows between stakeholders. Thepaper highlights current structural barriers to creating learning organizations.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilizes a conceptual model.

Findings – The analysis shows that the previous process and perception changes as they relate tolearning are moderated by structure, and that success in building the learning organization is limitedwithout redesign of the learning environment.

Practical implications – While restructuring is not the solution by itself (although someadministrators like to think so), the restructuring of the school is a moderator of all the changesoccurring in the path to creating a learning organization.

Originality/value – The paper provides a look at the barriers within schools and provides apractical agenda for action that enables the creation of learning organizations.

Keywords Schools, Learning organizations, Organizational structures, United States of America

Paper type General review

Introduction

Organizational structures are mechanisms for arranging and regulating the way peopleinteract with each other in time and space. Structures bring people together or keep themapart. Structures can shape our actions and relationships, opening up opportunities for andimposing constraints on them (Hargreaves et al., 2001).

In the transition from modernity to post-modernity, from adaptive to generate learning,much of the emphasis on building learning organizations has focused on the changes inculture, processes and people. These are important factors driving the change form atraditional organization to a learning organization and they need to occur in anenvironment that ensures their success. Organizational learning is a process thatdemands restructuring (Fullan, 1993) and the first walls to breach are those that existin the minds of people (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). Researchers have focused on theprocesses that need restructuring and the mental models that need to change to fosterthe creation of a new state, but they have so often failed to address the physical andorganizational structures that hinder success during the implementation stages.

The capacity of organizations to support teaching and learning is every bit asimportant as the personal capacity of the educators and the interpersonal capacity ofthe groups; organizational capacity begins with the awareness that a learningcommunity requires a different organizational structure (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000).The five disciplines (see Figure 1) address team learning, shared visions, individual

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Structuralbarriers

397

International Journal of EducationalManagement

Vol. 20 No. 5, 2006pp. 397-404

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-354X

DOI 10.1108/09513540610676458

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

and group perceptions (Senge, 1990); but they fail to paint a picture of the structure ofthe organization and the appropriate structure that would change the focus from atop-down design to a student-focused or student-centered vision. Systems thinking(Senge, 1990) needs to include the physical dimensions of a learning environment.

This paper will focus on schools and address the structural dimensions of theorganization as well as the hierarchical design of information flows betweenstakeholders. The analysis will show that the previous process and perception changesas they relate to learning are moderated by structure, and that success in building thelearning organization is limited without redesign of the learning environment. Whilerestructuring is not the solution by itself (although some administrators like to thinkso), the restructuring of the school is a moderator of all the changes occurring in thepath to creating a learning organization. The reculturing of the school will developfrom new structures and new processes that are enacted.

Analysis of problemRestructuring has no agreeable definition; its meaning is found in the context andpurpose of its use (Hargreaves, 1994). All the changes that have occurred in schools ofthe last two decades have revolved around improved teaching, testing to standards,meeting state and federal guidelines, and creating perceptions of change andempowerment. Under the guise of educational reform, changes to curriculum andstandards have not addressed the new thinking required for a “learning organization”;this is analogous to taking a bicycle wheel off a bike, adding a state-of-the-art car tire,and expecting the bike to now perform better without adjusting the bike or the rider.Subsequently, the push to create learning organizations within schools hasencountered implementation issues. One thing that has not changed is the physicalenvironment within schools.

The National Symposium on School Design in 1998 agreed that school design iscrucial to the success of students in the next decade (www.ed.gov). With Vice PresidentAl Gore in attendance, the educators discussed:

. ways to design quality learning environments that enhance teaching andlearning;

. ways to build schools that have multiple uses and serve every segment of thecommunity;

. ways to involve widespread community participation in designing andmodernizing schools; and

Figure 1.Research model

IJEM20,5

398

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

. ways to construct buildings that are safe, energy efficient, high-tech, andenvironmentally sound.

The average school in use today is 42 years old (Cutshall, 2003). Students are stillhoused in silos based on grades, grades organized in specific order, and seatingarranged in rows; all focused around individual classrooms where the teacher is themost important individual. Schools have been created to resemble factories from thenineteenth century: students progress from grade to grade, from room to room, as in aproduction line (Hargreaves and Evans, 1997). Educational systems and knowledgehave changed in the last 40 years. Assembly lines have since evolved in the last decadefrom this antiquated model to incorporate cellular manufacturing, customization, andcustomer responsiveness: schools have not evolved! The focus in operationsmanagement is on the customer and meeting the customer needs: once again, thishas not transcended into schools.

The classroom is the “unit of analysis”, the focal point of reform. The work ofteachers is often assumed to go on within the confines of a single room (Louis et al.,1996). The need to incorporate new teaching methods into the classroom requires theteacher to undergo significant training. But placing the teacher with new techniques ina situation where students expect more requires a paradigm shift in how theenvironment is structured. Educators find themselves trying to squeeze new projectsand initiatives into old, unsympathetic structures rather than transforming thestructures so that they accommodate and support the new purposes and practices(Hargreaves et al., 2001). An example of this would be the redesign of classroom andcurriculum to incorporate information technology into the class. As informationtechnology became an integral part of school lectures, both the teachers and theclassroom had to evolve to meet the new demands of the technology. In order toincorporate technology into all classrooms, school buildings have to change; teachersof various disciplines need to be re-educated on how to use IT within their educationalpractice. The shift must be from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction.

Building an environment for dialogue, for example, cannot occur in classroomswhere the layout of desk is arranged in rows (Figure 2). Similarly, allowing students toteach each in peer learning roles cannot occur unless the desks are arranged in circularpods. Further interaction and student-centered discussion can occur in circular orU-shaped arrangements of the room where the teacher plays a more supportive role.

Figure 2.Classroom layout

Structuralbarriers

399

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Learning is a complex process that defies the linear precepts of measurement andaccountability (Brooks and Brooks, 1999). Peer teaching enhances the socializationprocess and provides a means for promoting learning and development (Silverman andCasazza, 2000). The dynamic nature of the new paradigm under organizationallearning makes the constructivist educator less effective in the old classroom layout.Since there is no one approach to learning under constructivism, the emphasis is onsocial interaction and adaptability (Silverman and Casazza, 2000). Interactions andfluid responses require new organizational structures. Based on the layout in Figure 2,Model A is a typical classroom; Model B creates pods for peer interaction and groupactivities; Model C creates a larger group with student centered learning. A fourthoption not explored would be no classrooms in a virtual learning environment. Beyondthe classroom, the typical K-12 assembly-like organization of the building can bealtered to mix higher and lower grades. The old building designs of long corridors androws of classrooms can be redesigned to include pod-like structures for grades tomingle, semi-glass walls to increase visibility and interaction, and study-areasinterspersed between rooms to encourage group activities.

Another issue with structure revolves around the power relationships within theorganization. Traditional structure is hierarchal in nature, centralized, and is top-downin design. The goal of empowerment under a learning organization approach requiresdistributed leadership and larger job enrichment. The changing of the power structuremay lead to decentralized leadership with sections of the school under differentleadership. Just as in the classroom layout above, creation of pods within the schoolallows for communities to develop. Linkages between the pods would be essential tofoster learning.

Literature reviewMany researchers in the organizational learning area have made attempts to classifythe role of physical structure as a part of the total restructuring of the school, but theyhave failed to then address when and how the changes should be made. Physicaldesign has been absent from future vision and future strategic plans. Redefining thelearning space requires new thinking; a clear link exists between professional learningand structural arrangement (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000).

Learning organizations are suited to open structures and flatter organizations.Traditionally, schools were designed to resemble business entities: they were based onorganizational divisions, functional areas, command and control, top-down emphasis,and layers of bureaucracy. The new organization in a learning environment needs toreverse the model to become bottom-up and layer-free. Teachers engage each other tocreate professional communities of practice – functional silos are eliminated andinterdisciplinary or multidisciplinary programs are instituted to share knowledge.Schools should not be thought of primarily as places of learning, but rather as arenaswhere individuals engage in knowledge construction (Schlechty, 1991).

The challenges facing school systems require community efforts to be combinedwith government to create a focus on the student. The overhaul of the school buildingsneeds to occur at all grade levels in order for effective change to succeed. Educatorshave to recognize that schools, schools structures and schooling need to be verydifferent to prepare students for the world of work (Bond and Giles, 1997). Otherresearchers have argued for fundamental changes in the practice of grouping students

IJEM20,5

400

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

by age and grade level and dividing learning into discrete subjects; but as one movesaway from the conventional structure, the range of options becomes unclear (Mitchelland Sackney, 2000).

Structures arrange and regulate the school environment. They control curriculum,timetables, lesson time, planning time, breaks, school departments, school focus, hiringdecisions, etc. Structures of schooling are so institutionalized and entrenched that theydefine the essence of schooling and become part of accepted culture (Hargreaves et al.,2001). The majority of school structures have been part of the “grammar of schooling”for decades or more (Tyack and Tobin, 1994). Teachers who favor alternative schoolstructures found that conventional structures created fractured relationships withstudents, undermined their planning, and overloaded them with other obligations(Hargreaves et al., 2001). The conditions of modernity have set parameters andassumptions within which schools and teachers operate (Hargreaves, 1994).

Structure determines the processes that operate and govern the environment. In thebusiness world, organizations adopt various structures to become more competitive(functional, product, multidivisional, and matrix). Contemporary structures includeboundaryless organizations (open systems approach where job roles and formalizationare de-emphasized), modular organizations (organizations where non-core functionsare outsourced), and virtual organizations (temporary organizations composed ofmultiple organizations formed for a specific purpose).

In education, structure can hinder change: schools create specialized functions thatmimic departments and territories; roles and structures tend to become solidified withnew challenges ignored, diverted into inappropriate structures, or address with newdepartments; structure is hierarchical in nature with chains of command and layeredbureaucracy (Hargreaves, 1994). This is further complicated by the numerous actorsthat participate in decisions regarding schools, curriculums, and funding. Newinitiatives require taxpayer and parental buy-in; without the financial backing to createthe new environments and structures, the reculturing phase without restructuring willlead to failure. Teachers have to also be a part of the solution and be willing to adapt totheir new roles. Other variables contribute to the structure of schools: school size maynegatively affect the creation of learning communities; complexity and specializationof curriculums and services decrease communication and reduces teachereffectiveness; lack of scheduling time reduces collaboration efforts and the buildingof professional communities (Louis et al., 1996).

Agenda for actionBefore determining the best way to meet a school’s facility needs, officials need to beclear on their school’s mission and culture; a school that has not articulated thoseconcepts may have to define itself more clearly before moving ahead with building orrenovating facilities (Kennedy, 2003). Planning the new structure is comparable todesigning an airplane in flight (Senge, 1999). Unless you are starting with a new school,trying to restructure and reculture existing schools is a daunting task. The existingbaggage of policies, procedures, culture, teachers, and physical dimensions create aformidable barrier. Strategic education designers need to include the physical andorganizational structure of the school into their planning. Their successes will betempered by the changes in the physical environment that suggests a new approach tostudents and faculty (see Table I).

Structuralbarriers

401

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Cu

rren

tte

ach

ing

env

iron

men

tL

earn

ing

org

aniz

atio

n

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Lon

gco

rrid

ors

wit

hlo

cker

son

eith

ersi

de.

Sq

uar

e/re

ctan

gu

lar

bu

ild

ing

sw

ith

har

ded

ges

Cla

ssro

oms

arra

ng

edin

seq

uen

tial

ord

erL

imit

edst

aff

dev

elop

men

tS

tru

ctu

res

for

con

trol

,se

par

atio

n,

stan

dar

diz

atio

n,

and

reg

ula

tion

Red

esig

ned

corr

idor

sto

elim

inat

elo

ng

lin

es.

Wal

lsfl

uid

wit

hcu

rves

and

artw

ork

(stu

den

t)C

lass

room

sar

ran

ged

ing

rou

ps

ofg

rad

es(m

ixed

orar

ran

ged

by

org

aniz

atio

nal

goa

ls).

Cre

atio

nof

alig

ned

pod

sof

clas

sroo

ms

Su

stai

ned

tim

efo

rd

evel

opm

ent

ofst

aff

Str

uct

ure

sfo

rem

pow

erm

ent,

incl

usi

on,

div

ersi

ty,

and

auto

nom

yC

lass

room

Lar

ge

clas

ssi

zes/

incr

ease

den

rolm

ent

wit

hh

igh

erte

ach

erto

stu

den

tra

tion

sA

ccou

nta

bil

ity

and

job

inte

nsi

fica

tion

crea

tin

gst

ress

eson

mee

tin

gst

and

ard

sS

eati

ng

arra

ng

edin

row

sfa

cin

gth

efr

ont

ofth

ero

om

Sm

alle

rcl

ass

size

toin

crea

sete

ach

er-s

tud

ent

inte

ract

ion

sS

har

ing

the

wor

klo

adin

ad

istr

ibu

ted

env

iron

men

tw

her

ete

ach

ers

can

vie

wan

dh

elp

each

oth

erto

mee

tg

oals

Sea

tin

gar

ran

ged

insm

alle

rci

rcu

lar

pod

sof

stu

den

tsO

Rse

atin

gar

ran

ged

inon

ela

rge

circ

leor

U-s

hap

edla

you

tIn

div

idu

alT

each

erat

the

fron

tof

the

room

con

trol

lin

gth

een

tire

env

iron

men

tIn

dep

end

ent

wor

kL

ectu

res

des

ign

edar

oun

dn

otes

and

curr

icu

lum

Tea

cher

’sd

esk

abse

nt

–th

ero

omis

des

ign

edar

oun

dth

est

ud

ent

wit

hth

ete

ach

erm

ovin

gar

oun

dIn

terd

epen

den

tw

ork

env

iron

men

tw

ith

team

teac

hin

gL

ectu

res

des

ign

edar

oun

dle

arn

ing

wit

hin

afl

uid

env

iron

men

tw

ith

mu

ltip

lele

arn

ing

stat

ion

s

Table I.Differences betweencurrent environment anda learning organization

IJEM20,5

402

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

The organizational structure changes may occur without active planning as eachindividual’s role within the organization evolves. As the organization gets closer to itsgoals, the more fluid the roles of hierarchy and power will flow and as such, theorganizational structure will adapt to new challenges. Power becomes a non-issue asteachers take empower themselves to create learning environments within theirclassrooms and within their disciplines. Structural change needs to be preceded bycultural change where teachers do not have restructuring imposed on them but pursueit together as staff relationships become more collaborative (Fullan, 1993; Newmann,1996).

The importance of restructuring may have less to do with the impact on curriculumand teacher demands, and more to do with creating opportunities for teachers to worktogether and support each other on a continuing basis (Hargreaves, 1994). A tougherchallenge will be to restructure the learning environment. Teachers and studentswithin the new learning environment will perform using the tools provided in theprevailing structure. The space in the building should be harmonious with theprinciples of a learning organization and unify and integrate the goals of students andteachers. Organizations need to expand their capacity to create results (Senge, 1990).Better coordination and design of student and teacher spaces should complement theprocesses that lead the organization down the path to becoming a learningorganization. The goal should focus on creating learning environments that addresscurrent and future needs.

References

Bond, R. and Giles, C. (1997), “The contracting resource base: a catalyst for educationaladministration reform”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 111-6.

Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. (1999), In Search of Understanding: The Case for ConstructivistClassrooms, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Cutshall, S. (2003), “Building 21st century schools”, Techniques, March, pp. 18-61.

Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, Falmer Press,London.

Hargreaves, A. (1994), Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in thePostmodern Age, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Hargreaves, A. and Evans, R. (1997), Beyond Educational Reform: Bringing Teachers Back in,Open University Press, Buckingham.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S. and Manning, S. (2001), Learning to Change: Teaching beyondSubjects and Standards, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kennedy, M. (2003), “Building better schools”, American School & University, 1 January.

Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M. and Kruse, S. (1996), “Teachers’ professional community inrestructuring schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 757-98.

Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000), Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a LearningCommunity, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Newmann, F.M. (1996), Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schlechty, P. (1991), Schools for the 21st Century: Leadership Imperatives for EducationalReform, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Structuralbarriers

403

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Senge, P. (1999), The Dance of Change, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Silverman, S.L. and Casazza, M.E. (2000), Learning and Development: Making Connections toEnhance Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Tyack, D. and Tobin, W. (1994), “The “Grammar” of schooling: why has it been so hard tochange?”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 453-80.

Further reading

Senge, P. (2000), Schools that Learn, Doubleday, New York, NY.

About the authorEbrahim Randeree is a PhD Candidate in the School of Management at the State University ofNew York at Buffalo. His primary research focus is in the outsourcing area and is combined withhis interests in education and knowledge management. He is an instructor in the capstoneundergraduate strategic management course at the University at Buffalo. His papers have beenpublished or accepted for publication in the Journal of Healthcare Information Management,International Journal of Electronic Healthcare and the Journal of Knowledge Management. He haspresented his research at HICSS, AMCIS and EAM. Ebrahim Randeree can be contacted at:er4@buffalo.edu

IJEM20,5

404

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Anna Meczynska, Roman Kmieciak, Anna Michna, Iwona Flajszok. 2013. A decision support method forpoorly structured problems in school management. Baltic Journal of Management 9:1, 91-112. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

2. Yvonne Lagrosen, Stefan Lagrosen. 2012. Organisational learning for school quality and health.International Journal of Educational Management 26:7, 664-677. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Christopher M. Branson. 2008. Achieving organisational change through values alignment. Journal ofEducational Administration 46:3, 376-395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by L

INN

EU

NIV

ER

SIT

ET

ET

At 0

1:58

16

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)