Abstract
This article, which is set within the Maltese education scenario of unfolding decentralization through the setting-up of multi-site school collaboratives (legally termed ‘colleges’) via a policy mandate, explores a particular aspect of this reform – that of ‘networking’. This is examined in terms of the potential for ‘networking’ that educational leaders have at both school and college levels and the ‘effects’ of these (non-)opportunities on both the leaders and the network itself. My study is framed within a postmodern paradigm and interpreted through a Foucauldian theoretical framework. Data for this case study are collected via semi-structured, in-depth interviews; participant observation; and documentary analysis; which are then subjected to narrative analysis. The findings reveal a very detached bond within and across levels, with this detachment unfolding simultaneously within both micro and macro strata. This article, besides theoretically addressing a gap in literature regarding the shortcomings of networks and network dynamics, has a particular significance for educational practitioners, policy makers, and all those who have school improvement on their agenda.
Introduction
This article, which is set within the Maltese education scenario of unfolding decentralization through the setting-up of multi-site school collaboratives (legally termed ‘colleges’) via a policy mandate, explores a particular aspect of this reform – that of ‘networking’. This is examined in terms of the potential for ‘networking’ that educational leaders have at both school and college levels and the ‘effects’ of these (non-)opportunities on both the leaders and the network itself as it is ensconced within the emerging discourse of collaboration as opposed to that of isolationism. This issue is investigated through the following research questions:
What benefits, if any, are being reaped by the educational leaders at both school and college levels, following the introduction of networks and networking?
What opportunities for networking exist between the Principal and the Heads, and among the Heads themselves?
What possibilities are present for collaboration to take place beyond the network at different hierarchical leadership levels?
Reform in the Maltese education system and the local policy context
The Maltese educational system has been undergoing a structured, gradual but steady change in terms of decentralization and increased school autonomy, with the main aim being that of renewal – modernizing it in line with global policy development. These reforms were intended to ensure that education in Malta would cater ‘for the specific needs of the student as an individual’ (Galea, 2006, p. 4), besides being meant to reinforce the implementation of the decentralization policy, made public in the government’s programme. The document, ‘For All Children to Succeed’ (Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment, 2005; henceforth referred to as FACT), sets out the Government’s strategy to transform the existing educational system into one that would foster new professional identities ready to embrace innovative changes that may be introduced, as well as learning communities that would provide the appropriate scenario to ensure a quality education for all. This document argues that through school networks, all children can be helped to succeed. School networks are considered as learning communities better equipped to meet the needs of the Maltese students through working in partnership with one another, joint problem-solving, resource-sharing, and the creation of new practices within the specific and particular context of a school cluster forming a single college.
Under the reform, Maltese state schools were organized into 10 colleges between 2006 and 2008. ‘College’ is the legal term chosen to denote the network of schools, made up of a number of primary schools feeding into secondary schools according to their geographical location. This setup is meant to ensure that children will begin and finish their education in the same college, ensuring a smooth transition across all levels through internal exams, control, and accountability. This major reform necessitated the introduction of new roles and new responsibilities, among which was the deployment of the College Principal, designated to be the educational leader of the college as a whole. Besides ensuring ‘an effective and efficient dialogue with all Heads of School and stakeholders’, he or she is also expected to provide guidance, direction, and support to the schools, through their Heads, in pursuit of their aims and functions and will facilitate the coordination and organization of common activities, programmes, projects, and specialization at the level of the college or each individual school. (Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment, 2005, p. 45)
The Education Act (2006) compels the Principal to hold a monthly meeting for all the Heads of School in the college, which is legally known as the ‘Council of Heads’(henceforth referred to as CoH), in order for all the leaders to build and maintain open channels of communication within and beyond the school community. The CoH is primarily expected to ‘nurture a spirit of collegiality in the running of the college while developing a common ethos and identity’ (Art. 55, pp. 621–622). On the other hand, the Head of School who, according to the policy document FACT, is expected to lead and manage, is explicitly required to collaborate with other Heads of College Schools . . . in a manner that maximizes networking under the leadership of the Principal and according to the direction and guidelines established by . . . other competent authorities. (p.74, emphasis added)
The college has a number of statutory functions that are outlined in the Education Act (2006). Among these, it should ensure the ‘continuous and smooth process of education’ to all children, as well as ‘the responsibility and the accountability of whosoever is involved in the schools, in order to ensure the improvement of the quality of the educational provision . . . by promoting, achieving, and maintaining high results and standards’. It is also expected to ‘promote dialogue and a team culture among the Heads and school staff’, as well as to ‘ensure that the National Curriculum Framework is translated into an appropriate curriculum for college students’. It is also expected to ensure ‘the promotion and dissemination of a culture of evaluation . . . internal educational auditing and full participation in the external quality assurance processes’. The college also has the responsibility to guarantee ‘the supply of resources, services, and facilities’, as well as ‘the timely recruiting of human resources’, ensuring that the latter function effectively to promote ‘a healthy culture of good conduct and of discipline’. One of the most significant roles of the college is to ‘promote and encourage . . . a positive attitude toward change’ (Art. 51, pp. 617–619).
Networking within the educational context
Different forms of networks, collaboratives, and federations have become an established part of many educational landscapes and have arisen for a number of reasons. Hadfield and Chapman (2009, p. 1) explain that some have been ‘imposed’ on schools, others have been ‘incentivised’ by the offer of external funding, but many have arisen because of the efforts of educational leaders who want to ‘make a difference’ in their locality, which assumes their essential ‘good’. It appears that the Maltese policy’s desire is that of a major organizational reform achieved through ‘contrived collegiality’ (Hargreaves, 1994). The Maltese Heads of School did not form networks out of choice, neither did they have any say in the choice of partners or the network setup. It was a top-down reform imposed on all state schools via a policy mandate, thus resulting in a ‘contrived’, rather than spontaneous and genuine collegiality.
Chapman and Aspin (2005) suggest that within education, networks are regarded as one of the most promising levers for large-scale reform due to their potential to reculture both the environment and the system in which policy makers operate through increased co-operation, interconnectedness, and multi-agency. Ainscow and West (2006) note that one of the main stated reasons behind the creation of school networks is that of school reform, the generation of equitable improvement. Chapman and Fullan (2007) illustrate that this occurs through the reduction of the polarization inherent in the education system, considering this as proof of these governments’ commitment to a social justice agenda translated in education policy and legislation.
The attractions, benefits, and attributes of school networks
According to Black-Hawkins (2004), the purposes of networks fall in two broad categories: a ‘moral’ purpose as defined by Lieberman (1999), with the drawing together of practitioners for the collaboration and enhancement of the daily practice of teaching; as well as a ‘structural’ purpose by which Hopkins (2000) regards networks as instruments of system change. Hopkins (2005) illustrates how networks can serve as ‘cross-over structures’ for the much-needed school reform, serving as the vehicle by means of which innovation takes place: networks are the essential unit of organization as we leave behind the false dichotomy between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches to educational change. (p. 5)
Despite there being no single blueprint for operation, consistent agreement seems to exist among various researchers (Bentley, 2005; Cole, 2001; Hopkins, 2000; Jackson & Burns, 2005; Lasater, 2007; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996) who present the features of ‘desirable’ educational networks. These authors claim that networks foster innovation, providing a test bed for new ideas while offering a platform for gradual innovation, distributing the risks and the workloads among different schools. According to Day and Hadfield (2005), they offer a clear purpose and direction with flexibility regarding the goals, allowing for the participation of a diverse constituency and for the fostering of what Castells (2001) terms ‘a creativity culture’. Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) view networks as providing the opportunity for building collaboration, consensus, and commitment. Moreover, the deepening of professional knowledge takes place via activities and relationships sponsored by networks. Sachs (2000) claims that networking promotes ‘professional activism’ (p. 82). Thereby, in addition to fostering trust and mutual knowledge, networks may provide the necessary space for leaders to challenge each other – providing capacity building, reflective practice, and an inquiry frame of mind. Most importantly of all, according to Atkinson, Springate, Johnson, and Halsey (2007), inter-school collaborations serve to raise achievement and enhance student outcomes through the sharing of resources and professional expertise. In the words of Katz, Earl, and Ben Jaafar (2009), The network is not simply the broker of a parasite-host relationship where schools take from a network . . . the relationship between network and school is a bidirectional, recursive one. (p. 16)
It is therefore claimed that networks enable schools to overcome their isolationism and move beyond to form community relationships. Chapman and Fullan (2007) argue that the crucial question is how school networks foster and further enhance the foundations of systemic reform, through ownership, coherence, capacity, and system presence.
The theoretical framework adopted for this study
In this section, I outline my Foucauldian theoretical framework, presenting a concise synopsis of Foucault’s theories of power, governmentality, discourse, and subjectification within which I anchor my analysis, as well as justifications for my choice. Foucauldian theory facilitated my exploration of the power flow among the educational leaders within the network, as well as the positioning and performance of identities within a discourse that renders them both ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’.
Conscious of the fact that Foucault was keen to avoid being seen as offering a ‘general system, an overarching theoretical framework or worldview’ (Foucault, 2001, p. 240), I take a ‘piecemeal approach to his work’ (Allen, 2012), by viewing it as a ‘tool-box’ (Megill, 1987). Foucault (2002a) warns, What I’ve written is never prescriptive either for me or for others – at most it’s instrumental and tentative. (p. 240)
Gillies (2013) thus demonstrates the value of Foucault’s trident of skepticism, critique, and problematization to operate within educational discourse, the purpose of which is ‘to question, probe, and identify weaknesses, contradictions, assumptions, and problems’ (p. 19). Gillies (2013) therefore concludes that Foucault’s (2001) support for his ‘gadgets’ to be utilized as ‘thinking tools’ (p. 65), combined with the current powerful status of leadership discourse within education, ‘make a Foucauldian analysis eminently suitable and potentially illuminative’ (p. 18).
In Foucault’s sense, power is a mechanism that works in and through institutions to produce particular kinds of subjects, knowledge, and truth (Foucault, 1979, 1980). For Foucault (1980), power is a sinuous and insinuating mechanism that works its way in a ‘capillary’ fashion into the ‘very grain’ of individuals, inhabiting their bodies, their beliefs and their self-hood, and binding them together as institutional subjects (p. 39). Power, in this sense, is both coercive and enabling, in that it is not imposed from ‘outside’ or ‘above’ but circulates within institutions and social bodies, producing subjects who exert a ‘mutual hold’ on one another. This is termed by Foucault as ‘a mutual and indefinite blackmail’, which binds superiors and subordinates in ‘a relationship of mutual support and conditioning’ (p. 159). This in turn leads to the ‘political double-bind which is the simultaneous individualization and totalization of modern power structures’ (Foucault, 2002c, p. 336).
Foucault (2002d) spells out power as ‘a machine in which everyone is caught, those who exercise (it) just as much as those over whom it is exercised’. Foucauldian power is thus an ‘exercised’ strategy, not a possession; it is both ‘local’ (never global) and simultaneously ‘not local’ (diffuse); it has no essence, being operational; and it is not an attribute, but a relation, passing through both the dominated and the dominating.
Foucault’s (1978/2002) concept of ‘gouvernementalite’, consisting of methods of shaping others’ behavior, implies that power is subject to negotiation, with each individual having his or her place in the hierarchy. Therefore, the ‘conduct of conduct’ encompasses forms of activity to affect the conduct of others, as well as the relation between self and self. This concept allows me to explore the extent to which the leaders’ behavior is shaped by the FACT policy and the Principal’s discourse.
Foucault (2002b) describes ‘discourses’ as ‘practices that systematically form the object of which they speak’ (p. 49). These ‘regimes of truth’ enable an exploration of how the subject is produced ‘as an effect’ through and within discourse and within specific discursive formations – how they are positioned by the leadership policy discourse, and how they, in turn, position themselves according to their distributed leadership performance.
Foucault’s (2002c) concept of ‘subjectification’ – dealing with the ‘way a human being turns him- or herself into a subject’ (p. 327), with a focus on those processes of self-formation in which the person is active – helps me explore the ways in which educational leaders are ‘subjectified’ in a college, in the changes that occur in their leadership conduct due to the creation of new roles as set out in the policy document, FACT. Through the multiple ‘practices of the self’, Foucault draws my attention to the contingency of self-formation processes, therefore, the multiple subjectivities of educational leaders being shaped by both global and local forces.
Methodological concerns
The data used in this article are generated through a case study methodology, collected via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the Heads and the Principal, and participant observation of their CoH meeting, all subjected to narrative analysis after being transcribed and translated by the researcher herself, in addition to documentary analysis of the FACT policy.
I adopt the paradigmatic lens of postmodernism as it favors multiple voices and local politics over the power of grand narratives, allowing for the dissonant voices and ‘masked’ power relations to play out in my research. Narrative is both the phenomenon under exploration and the methodological approach adopted for analysis. Analysis is based on meaning, structure, and interactional context for a revelation of how narratives are produced, recounted, and consumed. The ‘positioning of self in relation to the other’ (Watson, 2012, p. 460) emerges in narratives as ‘we narratively construct the other and through this construction we establish claims for our own identities’ (Watson, 2012, p. 471).
Intra-Network College is made up of a number of primary and secondary schools. I cannot give any more specific information about the individual schools and their leaders due to the sensitive nature of the data involved and the bounded nature of the Maltese educational community. The participants are all given the female gender and referred to numerically (‘P’ indicating primary school Heads, with ‘S’ referring to those at the secondary level), except for the Principal who has to be identified (as CP) due to the purposes of my research. The college is given a fictitious name. The leaders’ quotes, which are henceforth used as testimonials for the themes that emerge, emanate from both the interviews and the observation, and are all in italics. I am well aware of the fact that my case study constitutes what Damianakis and Woodford (2012) have identified as a ‘small connected community’ where ‘unintentional identity disclosure’ may occur due to tensions regarding the issues of anonymity, privacy, confidentiality, and betrayal. The participants were informed of the limits of confidentiality and the possible risks involved, but they all opted to continue with their participation. Transparency about my personal and theoretical attitudes and research purposes enabled me to maintain good research relationships. Furthermore, engaging in reflexivity throughout the research process helped me focus my attention and awareness on ethical nuances that according to Guillemin and Gillam (2004) might arise during the research process beyond initial perceptions.
Discussion and findings
The benefits of networking
The rationale behind the setting-up of colleges is set clearly out in the discursive framework of the FACT policy: In the twenty-first century, Nation-States and many other entities survive better through securing partnerships based on shared responsibilities. Schools are amongst such entities and can only prosper and flourish if they form and gain strengths through new alliances (p. xii). The college will ensure the emergence and the sharing of good practices. (p. 71)
This policy discourse is then interpreted distinctly and unfolds in various ways, which are at times contradictory, in praxis.
For me, the college is a shoulder as I am no longer alone in leading a school, but I am part of a wider circle as all the seven schools, in their own different way, are led by one direction. (P2)
On the other hand, S3 says, ‘I don’t feel collegial at all . . . Maybe it’s because I’m the eldest and I think in a different way, but I don’t feel part of the college’. Therefore, the college includes some Heads, while excluding others. The Principal has a firm belief in the strong bonding existing in her network: ‘This is how I see it . . . There is the atmosphere of a family, almost. We have managed to build this really well’. However, do all the Heads experience this ‘familial’ atmosphere? ‘I feel that there is so much energy among us and we really look forward to meeting in the CoH’ (P4): For me, a college means networking, working together, you are not alone as a Head of school – it means an identity . . . Upon being networked, I realized that I could benefit from shared problem-solving and decision-making in good relationships with other Heads. WE found strength in unity! (P1)
Notwithstanding, it seems that the benefits of networking are not unfolding in the same manner for all the Heads. ‘I don’t feel part of this college at all’ (S2). ‘There needs to be a strong sense of belonging, which is entirely lacking on my part! To feel that I belong, I feel the need to be involved in ideas . . . ’ (P3).
The college is regarded by the Heads as a form of imposition. Networking has created a ‘discursive field’(Foucault, 1991b, p. 63), limiting, or rather, delineating what the Heads can do and say. Heads are the subjects of the policy discourse, therefore, have to carry out the reform as set out within the policy’s discursive framework and boundaries.
Resistance to networking
The same leaders who profess experiencing a sense of collegiality and who boast about the benefits of networking, show an intense resistance to collaborate on a shared paper setting, 1 thus revealing the strong presence of the discourse of isolationism. This emerges in an argument that unfolds between S1 and S3: ‘All my teachers would opt to do it themselves rather than work with your teachers! Because they do not want to work with those of your school!’ (S1 addressing S3)
S3 does try to collaborate:
I try to collaborate with S1, but it’s a nuisance and a lot of obstacles are involved. We have different standards, S1 and I . . .
The Principal strives to foster collegiality: ‘I think that it is inevitable that we work together, collaborating is inevitable . . . Do not revert to the old system!’
Power emanates from her as she tries to circulate it among the Heads. She subjectifies the Heads to the discursive framework of the FACT policy that states, The college will network the schools forming the college by fostering a team culture amongst the Heads of School and by facilitating the effective co-ordination of the said schools. (p. 71)
Therefore, while the Principal takes up the discursive positioning of FACT in trying to promote the discourse of collegiality, by ‘fostering a team culture’, the Heads refuse to take up this positioning, they refuse FACT’s fact that ‘individual schools cannot achieve this alone’ (p. 180). This shows the ‘systems of formation’ (Foucault, 2002b, p. 121), the discursive formations within the college as contingent, provisional, and fallible.
A network within a network?
One can detect the strong presence of networking circulating among primary school Heads which emerges through a discussion about the upcoming audit
2
to take place in two schools. This is the advice given by the Principal: You have the advantage of being two schools to undergo the audit at the same time, so you can communicate a lot amongst yourselves. This is not a matter for competition, of one trying to be better than the other. Good things do not compete . . . It would be best if you communicate a lot with each other. Utilize this time to talk as much as you can, to share concerns, to help each other out.
This is how networking is recounted by the various Heads – This concept of networking became more realistic as we started working together – not just our monthly meeting, which I consider to be sacred, but especially when we primary school Heads started working more closely together, consulting each other about decisions and problems. We primary school Heads work together a lot and very seriously. (P1) We all meet regularly for the CoH meeting – which is the only occasion when we really, really meet, that is, we do have to attend. With the primary school Heads we are in constant contact via phone and email and even meet up outside the CoH, always, naturally, informing her as Principal. With the secondary schools, there has to be a link over transition. (P2)
On the other hand, FACT says, They will work in partnership with one another, share resources, will jointly solve problems, and create new practices within the specific and particular context of a group of schools forming one whole unit. Networks will ensure a smoother flow from one level of education to another. (p. xix)
This version of ‘networking’ is corroborated by the secondary school Heads, as according to S3: ‘With the four primary school Heads, there is just networking on student transition. Apart from that, we don’t have anything else in common, so we cannot work together!’
This is further confirmed by S1:
I think that the primary schools network with each other more than us three secondary school Heads. We don’t have much to collaborate on, but we do collaborate with the primary school Heads. Therefore, it’s not a question that we don’t want to work together.
Is this partnership between primary and secondary school Heads a ‘forced’ one that they have to endure?
FACT, however, states otherwise: Networking will facilitate horizontal and vertical linkages between schools from early childhood on to primary and then through to secondary education, in this way lessening one of the challenging problems of the existing system – that of a difficult transition from primary to secondary schooling. (p. 42)
Networking has been successful in fostering horizontal linkages within the same level (primary) but not vertical ones across levels (primary and secondary). Unfortunately, these linkages just function at the students’ transition period and stop there. Collaboration is limited to that very narrow aspect of transition which involves a visit to the prospective school and the handing over of the pupils’ documents.
Through empowering the Heads for the audit, by encouraging collaboration and communication, rather than competition, the Principal is fostering networking among the primary school Heads, strengthening the bond of the already strong presence of a network of primary schools within the weaker network of Intra-Network College as depicted by the Heads. The discursive framework of FACT is being enacted only partially – the aim of ‘working in partnership’ and ‘jointly solving problems’ is not being reached, neither is the facilitation of ‘horizontal and vertical linkages’ being actualized. S1 rationalizes how this lack of collaboration is not a matter of resistance to the policy, but a form of ‘normalization’, of how they are constructed by FACT, as a result of which this primary school networking seems to have become a ‘norm’. These can be considered as the ‘dividing practices’ by which the strong network of primary schools excludes secondary schools.
A detached bond within the network?
Unfortunately for the network members, the presence of a strong bond among the primary school Heads is not mirrored at the secondary level. This comes out in the words of S2, who provides a very good critique of the ‘collegiality’ within Intra-Network College, problematizing its unfolding: The secondary schools are problematic due to the presence of a very strong secondary school [that of S1] with a good intake of high achievers, as a result of which, attention is focused there, it is a showcase for the college. The Principal has reached her aim in the primary sector, but not in the secondary – resulting in a vacuum in the latter sector – we three [referring to the secondary schools] we are all separated. The Principal should call us and tell us that certain issues have to be tackled together because we are in a college. Is it just a college in writing only? On paper? A college means collegiality – we work together for the common good of the students. We have to work together. If the Principal gives prominence to a certain school, that is not good.
This is not how things should be happening, according to FACT: ‘The Principal will offer opportunities to the Heads of School to help to pool and share ideas, experiences, and good practice and to work together on common educational programmes, projects, activities, and other initiatives’ (p. 73).
There is an unequal power flow among the schools which ultimately reflects the relationship between the Principal and the Heads. Thus, not only are the secondary school Heads detached from the primary school Heads but they are also detached among themselves, in that they have not managed to network. S2 feels excluded from the network due to being an outsider to the primary schools and even more so to the secondary sector. Networking is not being enacted according to the FACT discursive framework, showing how Heads are both the subjects of policy and the active agents in mediating policy practices. The aim of ‘working in partnership’ and ‘jointly solving problems’ is not being reached, neither is the facilitation of ‘horizontal and vertical linkages’ being actualized. Heads across both levels acknowledge this ‘lack of networking’ among them but perform themselves in diverse ways: primary school Heads strengthen ‘their own’ bond, while secondary school Heads construct and take up a distant positioning both within and across sectors. It becomes a ‘regime of truth’ for them.
Intra-networking rather than inter-networking?
When asked about opportunities for networking with other colleges, this is what the Principal replied, I am not happy with the present situation, I want more . . . the college still falls back upon itself . . . There were attempts, I did try to build bridges with other schools in other colleges . . . But they didn’t get rolling . . . that’s all. It is easier to work on a college level. Just as in the past, a Head of School used to feel more comfortable, and found it easier and more natural to work in her own school, and now she had the challenge to work not just within her school but within a college context, that challenge is upon us as well because we have to work outside the college, with other people.
This reveals an intradiscursive battle within the Principal’s discourse and a certain degree of ambivalence in her position as she wants her schools to collaborate, while she does not collaborate with other colleges. The luxury of working within her college has been internalized as a technology of the self, to which she fails to offer resistance. The same problem that the networking system worked so hard to eradicate – school isolation – is now unfolding at the college level – with colleges working in isolation with no opportunities for inter-networking, with intra-networking taking place among the schools in the same college. Is it for power to remain within the college?
Both the Principal and the Heads are aware of this lack of inter-networking and explore the rationalities of the exercise behind college isolationism. P1 is realistic about the situation: ‘We have to pay attention not to get cocooned as a college and be unaware of what is taking place in other colleges . . . which practically, is happening at the moment’. This fear does not seem to be endorsed by S1 who provides the following reply:
Not really. We don’t need to worry. I meet other Heads when we have a national meeting and we talk before, during, and after the break. In this system, we are working together as a college in our own college, rather than networking with the outside . . . a good practice, in my opinion . . . which makes me feel very comfortable!!
Working within one’s ‘comfort zone’ may lead to college isolation – what is actually happening at the moment.
Different political rationalities are given by the leaders at distinct hierarchical levels. According to the Principal: ‘A lot of energy was channelled into establishing clear standards and clear practices in our own college . . . All the Heads know that very well!’ P2 fails to network with other schools beyond Intra-Network College because,
We already have enough on our plate . . . within our college. Besides, we have to inform the Principal before embarking on a new initiative . . . Her permission and approval need to be sought . . .
Conclusion
This section draws together the conclusions emanating from my research, providing possible answers to the research questions presented in the introductory section of this article. These conclusions revolve around the themes of network (non-)benefits; the unfolding network leadership dynamics; the presence of ‘intra’ rather than ‘inter’ networking; and the flow of power inequalities within the network.
Notwithstanding the Heads’ narrative of embracing collegiality, a ‘moated or walled culture of schooling’ (Black, 2008, p. 44) still persists. The majority of the Heads extol the benefits of networking; however, sharing leadership ‘outside’ their school walls and ‘letting go’ of their schools is still a weak point. Networking does not seem to be delivering on all its promises as laid out in FACT, neither the Principal nor the Heads are acting out their roles according to the policy discourse, perhaps the Principal to a greater extent as evident in her very contradictory performance. The policy mandates the Principal to foster collaboration or the sharing of good practices among the Heads of the college schools which does not always unfold.
The very strong sense of isolationism still prevalent within the college is mirrored at the macro-level, with the network system itself failing to promote inter-networking.This thus becomes a case of ‘college isolationism’ due to the lack of collegiality among colleges as FACT creates a discursive reality of college insularity. The same problem that the networking system worked so hard to eradicate – school isolation – is now unfolding at the college level. The college runs the risk of insularity from the outside world (Jackson, 2005), in addition to becoming a force for exclusion and for the engendering of parochialism (Hadfield & Chapman, 2009) as school leaders prefer to work with others they know, that is, within their college. This snail-paced, or rather, ‘effectively’ inexistent traffic flow among colleges may lead to ‘network homophily’ (Lima, 2010), and ‘groupthink’ (Lima, 2001), with colleges and Principals reverting to the old system of isolationism.
The Heads’ narratives and performance reveal what might be described as a very detached bond between primary and secondary school Heads. One can detect the presence of a ‘network within a network’ constituted by the four primary school Heads which emerges as a ‘strong’ network within the ‘weaker’ network that is the Intra-Network College. There is the possibility of this ‘network of primary schools’ devolving into ‘comfortable collaboration’ (Chapman & Hadfield, 2010). Consequently, too much integration within the same sector would in turn lead to insularity not only from the outside world as stated by Jackson (2005), but from the other network members – the leaders of the secondary schools. Seemingly, it is only the primary schools that have been enabled to partially ‘overcome their isolationism’ (Katz et al., 2009, p. 16) through networking. However, this also shows the agentic action (Adams, 2012) of these primary school Heads within policy discourse as they manage to articulate positions for themselves within the constraints of FACT. This confirms Lima’s (2010) claim about the constantly shifting nature of the network. The Heads rationalize this lack of bonding between primary and secondary sectors due to having nothing in common curriculum-wise. They thus position themselves as ‘victims’ of the State that in turn positioned the ‘school network’ as the structural model for Maltese schools.
However, not only are the secondary schools detached from the primary schools, there is a strong detachment among the three secondary school Heads. This is mainly attributable to ‘leadership shearing’ (Hadfield, 2007) – the Heads have ended up in quasi-antagonistic relationships because of differential rates in the development of their ‘lateral agency’ (Hadfield, Jopling, Noden, & O’Leary, 2005), as well as their shifting identification with the network and its aims. This leads to a power inequality. According to Lank (2006), this power inequality can lead to one-sided relationships – and traces of these can be detected in Dual-Network College, to a certain extent – with the potential danger of the disruption of the whole network, with the constellation of leadership (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001) breaking apart ‘as different groups spin out of each other’s orbit’ (Hadfield, 2007, p. 280).
Implications for theory and practice
The final section considers the implications of this article, offering insights into the development of practice and generalizability, demonstrating the relevance of the research findings to an international context through the invitation of reflexive engagement with the main issues that emerged.
Lima (2010) highlights a major area of inadequacy in education networks research which revolves around network dynamics – a shortcoming which is also noted by Fineman (2003) and Crawford (2011) as relationships within the organization. Moreover, the current policy discourse favors distributed leadership, which necessitates democratic relationships; however, attention has been drawn to the absence of in-depth critiques of power relations surrounding distributed leadership in school settings in the educational leadership literature (Crawford, 2012; Storey, 2004; Youngs, 2009). My research addresses these gaps in literature, with the Maltese college thus defying the idea behind networking, creating more barriers and divisions rather than ‘strong’ bonds. The findings presented in this article, highlighting both the strong bonds and weak links within the network, which both threaten to flounder it, as well as the lack of inter-networking with other colleges, could aid policy makers in future revisions of the policy and all those in an international context who are involved with improving schools through multi-site school collaboratives.
Educational practitioners at all levels, especially those whose everyday reality is one of a networked setting, can also benefit from my findings through reflexive engagement with the issues raised below, aided by Foucauldian theory:
What is the ‘real’ purpose behind networking? Who are the beneficiaries, ultimately? Is it a bidirectional relationship or a parasite-host relationship? What, after all, is an education system, other than a ritualization of speech, a qualification, and a fixing of the roles for speaking subjects? (Foucault, 1981, p. 64)
How much ‘active participation’ (Church et al., 2002) is encouraged and consequently permitted to evolve within the network? More importantly, who participates, and what is the nature and extent of their contribution? The Heads fail to contest this ‘non-participation’ and accept the college as ‘given’. According to Foucault (1991a), ‘He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it . . . he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection’ (p. 202–203).
Why do leaders still cling to the strong sense of individualism at both school and college levels? Foucauldian theory can aid explanation in this way: ‘Any system of education is a political way of maintaining or modifying the appropriation of discourses, along with the knowledges and powers which they carry’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 64). ‘Relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated, nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation, and functioning of a discourse’ (Foucault, 1980, p. 93).