Is it possible to build, construct or re-construct a learning educational system? Yes, so it seems, if we accept the thinking behind and the outcomes reported from initiatives like the Ontario Education Strategy (Pedwell et al, 2011), Fullan, 2010). Case stories like the Ontario model are of importance, hence they show how targeted learning and change is attained even if educational systems also might be perceived as loosely coupled (Weick, 1976).      

The practicalities of trying to improve entire, large education systems are not necessarily well understood. Pedwell et al (2011) described a systematic leadership development initiative over several years in the Province of Ontario, Canada. This text is a case study of a similar, but much smaller change initiative in a Norwegian educational system. It is however, done in a comparative perspective, highlighting learning differences between quite similar systems.  

Four research questions were asked: What is an educational system that makes it sensible to use learning metaphors to describe it? What does a system like that, do? How does it work? And finally, how is the relationship between the system and outcome understood as school results perceived by the members of the system?  

A very simple, systems theory framework was applied in the study. The four educational systems studied could not reasonably be defined as integrated hierarchies, they resembled loosely coupled system, or many small, formal and informal systems more or less cooperating. A definition was then applied that emphasised that parts of a system have a function in the meaning of the system or the whole of a system (Moilanen, 2005, Bateson, 1972, Boulding, 1956, Laszlo, 1972). This highlights two aspects of systems: Firstly that the connections and relations among the parts of the system is more interesting than the parts themselves. Secondly that learning outcome of the system might be understood as degree of functionality, for example in form of higher degree of cooperation or teamwork (Senge, 1990). When comparing systems, this is an important perspective.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. NY. Ballantine Books. Boulding, K (1956). The Skeleton of Science. In a paper written especially for Management Science, 2, 3 (Apr. 1956) pp.197-208 and reprinted in General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, vol. 1, 1956. Fullan, M. (2010). All Systems Go. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press. Glosvik, Ø. (2015). Lærande utdanningssystem? Tilfellet Sogn og Fjordane i lys av erfaringar frå andre fylke. I Langfeldt, G. (red). Skolens kvalitet skapes lokalt. Presentasjon av funn fra forskningsprosjektet «Lærende regioner». Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Langfeldt, G. (red). Skolens kvalitet skapes lokalt. Presentasjon av funn fra forskningsprosjektet «Lærende regioner». Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Laszlo, E. (1972). Introduction to systems philosophy: toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. New York : Gordon and Breach. Moilanen, R. (2005) Diagnosing and measuring learning organizations. I The Learning Organization Vol. 12 No. 1, 2005 pp. 71-89 Pedwell, R., Levin, B., Pervin, B., Gallagher, M.J., Connor, M., Beck, H. (2011): Building Leadership Capacity Across 5,000 Schools. Chapter 34 in International Handbook of Leadership for Learning Volume 25 of the series Springer International Handbooks of Education pp 603-617 Senge, P. M. (1990/2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.