Peer Networks and Sharing Best Practices: A “New” Old Idea

Printer-friendly version

One of the perennial criticisms of public education in the United States is the reliance on the traditional “egg-crate” model of teaching and learning, whereby teachers instruct students within isolated, closed-door classrooms with little interaction or sharing of effective practices (Johnson 2010). Peer learning among teachers and leaders, when it does happen, has traditionally been scattered and informal, with the exception of some district- and philanthropically supported efforts (McLaughlin & Talbert 2006).

An emerging literature supports the idea that peer networks, both within and across schools, can improve teaching and learning (McLaughlin & Talbert 2006; Hargreaves & Shirley 2009). In England, there has been a focus over the past decade on developing formal peer networks, especially in urban settings that have traditionally underperformed relative to other areas of the country. For example, both the London Challenge/City Challenge initiatives, and the Raising Achievement, Transforming Learning reforms in England described by Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) placed school-to-school and peer networking at the center of their school improvement work, with very positive results. As Andy Buck, operational director for City Challenge at the National College for School Leadership and Children’s Services, put it:

Great schools rarely go it alone. The most successful schools in London are not isolated and separate from their local community and other schools but actively encourage and embrace interaction with others. (Buck 2009, p. 15)

A new exploratory study by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (Mishook, McAlister & Edge 2011) looks at peer networking in England and the United States (through the lens of New York City). The study is part of the work of the Transatlantic School Innovation Alliance (TSIA), a partnership program designed to improve teaching, learning, and educational leadership by creating a peer network of principals and practitioners in secondary schools in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The TSIA study found that over the last decade, England has invested significant resources in building and supporting peer networks of schools, administrators, and teachers, especially in areas where students have historically underperformed (London, for example). Creating an “outward facing” orientation for schools is now part of the educational culture in England. In New York City, by contrast, recent reforms have placed more emphasis on school autonomy and competition than peer networking and sharing of effective practices. While there are small formal and informal networks, often facilitated by intermediary organizations like New Visions for Public Schools, the scale of these networks is much smaller than in England.

This lack of widespread formal knowledge sharing is coupled with an increased emphasis on evaluation systems that reward individual teachers and schools for producing higher test scores. The study concludes that the push for these “new teacher-evaluation systems that rely primarily on matching individual teachers with their students’ test scores threatens to exacerbate [a] competitive, rather than collaborative, system of teaching,” a system that does not lend itself to high-quality practice

Research has shown that instruction is one of the most essential school-level factors in student performance (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin 1998; Rockoff 2003). The sharing of best practices — across classrooms and schools — are tools that schools, districts, and states can use to create and retain highly effective teachers and school leaders. This recent Annenberg study found that U.S. teachers used peer-to-peer networks when available and found them valuable. But without formal structures and built-in time for such networks — and absent a culture of collaboration and teamwork — they will remain tools never used to their full potential.

This is why the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) strongly supports the U.S. Department of Education’s recent recognition of the importance of peer networks (which it callscommunities of practice). The USDOE is now documenting these communities, especially those that leverage new technological tools like social networking and involve parents and communities, with the goal of increasing “spaces for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and problem solving to close the achievement gap” (Tackett & Cator 2011).

Based on TSIA’s ongoing work, as well as the recent related study, AISR encourages the crafting of peer networking policies that:

• allow individuals in schools adequate time to learn about and share effective practices;
  
  
• build rapport and “safe spaces” for principals and practitioners to discuss challenges openly and honestly;
  
  
• understand the importance of building social capital within and across schools, and that teaching and leadership are joint enterprises
  
  
• emphasize inter-school collaboration and outward facing approach, rather than the competitive models that are increasingly popular in urban districts; and
  
  
• mix both technological and face-to-face interactions to build effective communities of practice.

Not only do these guidelines support collaboration, rather than competition and isolation, they are consistent with recent international research that illuminates the traits of the world’s most successful educational systems (Fullan 2010; Gurria 2011).

REFERENCES

• Buck, A. 2009. What Makes a Great School? A Practical Formula for Success. London: National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.
  
  
• Fullan, M. 2010. All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  > Description, reviews, ordering
  
  
• Gurria, A. 2011. Remarks. International Summit on the Teaching Profession. New York, NY (March 17). 
  > Read full remarks
  
  
• Hanushek, E., J. Kain, and S. Rivkin. 1998. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Achievement.
  > Download PDF
  
  
• Hargreaves, A. and D. Shirley. 2009. The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  > Description, reviews, ordering
  
  
• Johnson, S. M. 2010. “How Best to Add Value? Strike a Balance between the Individual and the Organization in School Reform.” Voices in Urban Education, no. 27:7-15. 
  > Download PDF
  
  
• McLaughlin, M. W., and J. Talbert. 2006. Building School-based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
  
  
• Mishook, J., S. McAlister, and K. Edge. 2011. Peer Networks in School Reform: Lessons from England and Implications for the United States. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
  > Download PDF
  
  
• Rockoff, J. 2003. “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.” The American Economic Review 94, no. 2:247Ð252.
  > Download PDF
  
  
• Tacket, L, and K. Cator. 2011. “The Promise of Communities of Practice.” U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement blog.
  > Read blog post 

PREPARED BY 

Jacob Mishook
Senior Research Associate, District Redesign
Annenberg Institute for School Reform 
Jacob_Mishook@brown.edu