This proposal reflects the conference theme of ‘Education and Society’. It focuses on the experience of two principals who have attempted to introduce learning communities within the context of their schools, the expectations the education system in which they operate, and their society. Our research shows the complexity and challenge for introducing and sustaining a learning community. It also shows how innovative thinking can bring communities together and empower the whole school community. In our proposal, we argue that learning communities operate at different levels and the leaders of these schools demonstrate this. The result was two different perceptions of learning communities.

The research questions are:

1) How have leaders in diverse communities addressed to concept of learning communities for their school?

2) What strategies have they adopted to support the notion of a learning community?

3) What is the outcome?

4) What is the role of leadership in promoting a learning community?

Conceptual framework.

While the notion of learning communities has been in education literature for decades, there is now an expectation in most educational systems and jurisdictions that schools fully embrace the notion of a learning community. Learning communities can build capacity and enhance learning for everyone (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000). Yet this concept of community is complex and open to many different, and often contradictory, interpretations and manifestations. Mitchell and Sackney (2000) note that definitions of a learning community lack clarity and agreement and there is even less agreement about developing these communities. For example, Kilpatrick, Barrett and Jones (2003) argue that learning communities can be used in diverse and flexible ways.  Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003) claim that a learning community is a state of mind, non-linear, bigger that the sum of its parts, and is about learning as community. Again, Copper and Boyd (2012) argue that learning community is a philosophy as well as a place, a way of being as well as a working model, and a mindset as well as a map. What is common is that learning communities make the movement away from the individual as a focus of learning to the contribution of others in the learning, ie, a community (Feldman, 2000).

The literature on learning communities and our own experience in schools tends to divide learning communities into two categories. The first defines learning communities more broadly at the school level or beyond the school (Sergiovanni, 1994a). Senge (2000) describes a learning community as a broader concept that embraces the classroom, the school, parents, and world at large (beyond the community). Sato (2008) argues that the school must be made of communities of learners at all levels with the view of bringing learning to the fore. Sackney, Walker and Mitchell (2003,2005) claim that the learning community sees learning as a primary goal, and learners and teachers are co-creators of learning events.

 The second group focuses on a specific kind of learning community – a professional learning community (PLC) (DuFour & Eaker, 1998), sometimes known as communities of practice (Dufour, 2004; Hord 2008/9, Dufour & Reeves, 2016). Often PLCs are defined in terms of attributes and characteristics (Hord & Roy, 2013; Bolam, et.al 2005).

 In our study, we explore how two principals in diverse communities have successfully created learning communities overtime. Our research confirms that learning communities operate at different levels: as professional learning communities within the school and between schools and networks of professionals; as the school itself being a learning community, where everyone is learning; and, at another level, as the school and its broader community learning together.

The project was multi- perceptive case studies using qualitative methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Merriam, 1998)). Semi structured questions were used to interview participants (Hammond and Wellington, 2012; Lichtman, 2006). Interviewees included principal, deputy principals, senior teachers, teachers and, as these were both Catholic schools, the parish priest as the employer. Group interviews were held with parents and students. Interviews ranged in length between 50 minutes and 1 hour and were recorded. Recording enabled the researchers not to just ‘write furiously’ (Stake 1995) but to listen, reflect and ask for clarification during the interview. Principals were interviewed three times. The interactive model of data analysis as described in Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to examine the evidence provided to explore what was happening in the schools in relation to the research questions. Themes emerged which reflected the literature. The data identified under the themes was further reduced to sub themes identified by matrices. The case studies were two Catholic primary schools (students 5-12 years) chosen because of the prior reputation of the principals and because the school communities were both in challenging contexts and diverse cultural, socio and economic settings. School A, established in 1996, had an enrolment of over 700 students and was set in a growth corridor of Melbourne, Australia. 80% of the school’s population were of Iraqi or Syrian origin with 28% having entered Australia on refugee visas. Many of these students, and their families, were victims of trauma or suffered from referred trauma. While only 33% of students had been born overseas, 91% spoke a language other than English at home. Most of these students and their families were Chaldean Catholics, that is of a strong traditional Catholic faith. A high percentage of the students had also been diagnosed with learning disorders. School B, established in 2006, was also in a growth corridor of Melbourne and had an enrolment of 478 in 2020. The school population was multi-cultural with families from Iraq, India, Turkey, Italy, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. 41% of families identified as language background other than English. Unlike School A, this school was classified as having average ICEA (Index of Community Socio-Economic Advantage). The principals of the two schools were recognised for their leadership and vision in tackling complex issues. They had demonstrated their ability to think creatively to develop their schools as learning communities both differently and in different contexts.

The case studies demonstrate the importance of leadership in building a learning community. The findings show the importance of creative thinking in bringing about change. The notion of a learning community is complex and these case studies illustrate how learning communities can operate at different levels within schools and bring the whole school community together, albeit differently. The findings support the literature that a learning community can be interpreted in various ways. Learning communities in both cases were developed over time, interpreting the concept differently. and demonstrating different paths to success. School A embraced the notion of a professional learning community, with the school as a learning community, reaching out to embrace and engage the broader community. Language was an important strategy: the professional learning communities were identified as ‘learning villages’, building on the belief that it takes a village to raise a child; the concept of the ‘power of 3’ described the three-way partnership between staff, families and students. To embrace the broader community, the school used the ‘inside-out; outside-in’ approach- inviting the community in and reaching out into the community. School B’s notion of professional learning school used the term ‘learning studios’ which were designed within an open learning environment. The school welcomed the community into the school to share its approach to religion and learning. Parents were partners with their children and welcomed to participate in their learning. School B invited numerous professionals and agencies to engage with them as learning partners.

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., . . . Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Bristol: University of Bristol Department of Education and Skills. Cooper, C. & Boyd, J. (2013) Schools as Collaborative Learning Communities http://www.vision.net.au/~globallearning/pages/lfs/clc_artcle.html DuFour, R. (2004). What is a 'professional learning community'. Educational Leadership. May 61 (8): 6–11. DuFour, R. & Reeves, D. (2016) The Futility of PLC Lite Phi Delta Kappan,97(6) 69-71. Feldman, D. H. (2000). Forward. In V. John-Steiner, Creative collaboration (pp. ix-xiii). New York: Oxford University Press. Hammond, M. & Wellington, J. (2012). Research methods: The key concepts. New York: Routledge Hord, S, and Roy, P. (2013). Creating Learning Communities in S.M. Hord and P.A. Roy (Eds) Reach the Highest Standard in Professional Learning: Learning Communities. SAGE Publications, California. Hord. S. M. (2008) The Evolution of the professional Learning Community, National Staff Development Council, 29(3) 10-14. Lichtman, M. (2006) Qualitative Research in Education. A User’s Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, A Sage Company. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, A Sage Company Mitchell and Sackney (2000) Profound Improvement Building Capacity for a Learning Community ,Swets and Zeitlinger , The Netherlands. Sackney, L., Mitchell, C. and Walker, K. (2005), “Building capacity for learning communities: a case study of fifteen successful schools”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April. Sackney, L., Walker, K. and Mitchell, C. (2003), Factors that build capacity for learning communities. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration Conference, Halifax, May. Sato, M. (2008). Philosophy on the restoration of schools in Japan: The vision, principles and activity system of the learning community. E-journal of All India Association for Educational Research, 20(3,4), np. Senge, P (2000) Schools that Learn, London: Nicholas Brealey Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994b, May). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226 Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, A Sage Company Stoll, L., Fink, D. & Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning ,Chapter 6 in Louise Stoll, Dean Fink and Lorna Earl The Learning community: learning together and learning from one another, London, Routledge Falmer, 131-160