The ever increasing interdependence of organizations demands an appropriate response from schools to involve human capital both in and out of the school and in the community for preparing learners in positive interactions in a diverse world. Despite acknowledging the need, school leaders may find it a big challenge to identify and promote this co-constructivist practice in schools where all the stakeholders work together to promote learning particularly when underlying norms are deeply embedded in the culture of a school and reinforced by societal expectations. In some cases, school leaders overlook these cultural influences in school settings or, because of their own belief system and biases, even consciously choose to maintain a status quo of traditional teaching, learning and administrative practices. What are the real challenges that the stakeholders in schools face while trying to bring all on board? How do they position themselves as important partners with schools to establish LfL? Do schools have the structures in place to ensure inclusiveness of all on policies, programmes, and practices in schools? As stated by Bustamante (2006), culture audits are pivotal to assess the readiness of any school to examine how well the experiences and needs of diverse groups in a school are taken care of. If these culture audits are non-existent, leadership may not obtain
87
„emic‟ (insider) and „etic‟ (outsider) perspectives of various stakeholders in a school. The schools that stick to the traditional way of working may not progress within the times with a new set of assumptions that view education in a socially constructed domain. To progress and be effective, many researchers contend that it is fundamental for school leaders to review policies, practices, and organizational structures and remove potential barriers. It is emphasized if new policies and practices are not created after the identification and removal of barriers, concepts such as LfL may not be pragmatic (Khan et al., 2009; Banks, 2002).
Concluding their large scale research in the area of school culture, Bustamante et al. (2009) argue that if the roles and responsibilities in a school with a collaborative environment are not defined, they lead to confusion and stress. The research shows that school leaders find it difficult to have a consensus among teachers and other stakeholders about who is responsible for what. In their study, Wells and Feun (2007) argue that although teacher leadership is rated very high, if not managed properly, it may create stress among teachers and may distract them from their core business of teaching and learning. The participants of their study listed many challenges. At the top of every complaint list was concern for the negative, resistant people who were vocal in every staff meeting. Teachers described such colleagues as bullies and unco-operative, and also complained about lack of time and administrative support. Creating a collaborative culture in school without proper planning and in a disorganized manner may not achieve any desired results (Wells and Feun, 2007).
88
Besides teacher leadership, the literature highlights difference of opinion among different stakeholders, in response to student-related items such as student “voice,” and student leadership. The outcome of any move to promote student leadership in schools is considered dependent on a student‟s own initiative, abilities, and choices by the leaders and teachers. However, students may feel that schools have limited opportunities for them and find support and opportunities deficient for their needs in this regard. Lack of time and money are consistently mentioned as barriers to focusing on social integration and co-constructivism for learning (Bang et al., 2010; Rizvi, 2008). Certain constraints have been highlighted by many involved in schools to promote a culture for argumentative practices among students and other stakeholders. And it is questioned if the teachers accept a reposition alongside students who are empowered to reflect critically on the adequacy of information received from the teachers. This analyses teachers‟ abilities to manage the highly technology oriented and dynamic students, and challenges teachers‟ professional status as traditionally conceived in many countries across the world including Pakistan rather as gatekeepers of knowledge (Bang et al., 2010; Coleman and Earley, 2005). In response to any move focusing on school environment to meet the needs of diverse learners, several school leaders and teachers simply find it difficult due to time, motivation, lack of awareness or constraints on resources. It is felt that distribution of leadership to cater for the diverse needs of learners requires large amounts of funding which is mostly not available to them, particularly in the Public schools of Pakistan (Riaz, 2008; Khan et al., 2009). However, the question arises whether LfL rests only on resources and funding or can it be established making use of skills, potential and willingness of human capital available in every school.
89
There is a strong emphasis on the importance of parental involvement as one of the essential factor for leading learning in schools (Epstein, 2003; Epstein and Sheldon, 2006; Farooqi, 2011). Little is known about which parental involvement strategies are most effective in meeting the needs of the diverse groups of families despite all the claims about the importance of home–school partnerships and involving community in children‟s educational process (Brent et al., 2006; Farooqi, 2011), or what barriers may be limiting the implementation of parent involvement activities. Further, the literature claims that teachers, parents, and school leaders may have somewhat different perceptions and expectations of learning, parental involvement and community–school partnerships, thus making the task of this social inclusion in the process of learning difficult (Reynolds, 1991). Teachers are often unhappy about parents attitude for being „too pushy‟, „too concerned with their own child‟s learning at the expense of the rest of the class‟, or „too critical of the teacher‟s teaching style‟ (Farooqi, 2011). The question arises if parental involvement and concern about their children‟s performance in schools can be seen as positive attributes that contribute to the concept of LfL if personal biases are kept on one side.
The real challenge in resource-starved environments in schools across the world, and particularly in a developing country like Pakistan, is to determine what the local community and society in general want from schools and then determine the most cost-effective inputs to create such effective schools (Prew, 2009; Riaz, 2008). While networking is becoming an increasingly popular school improvement strategy with potentially high levels of success, there is little research that shows the challenges that school leaders face as they enter into these new relationships (Evans and Stone-Johnson, 2010). Their study shows that head
90
teachers face three types of challenge in these networks: contextual considerations for network involvement, sustaining internal commitment and capacity building while trying to establish network participation. The strength of the network and professional collaboration rests on its voluntary approach of participation. Networks that fail to maintain this focus often fall apart, as members drift away (Hopkins, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative to have the purpose of any professional collaboration and network very clear, but at the same time it should be flexible regarding its goals. This flexibility allows the participation of a vast constituency and may help promote creativity among learners. In addition to local policy issues, teachers‟ beliefs, experiences and circumstances also directly impact on networks and get influenced by these as well. Networks on the one hand can be a source of development of human capital as the very nature of networking tends to attract individuals with strong interpersonal skills. However, on the other hand, some of the ambitious individuals may become overly involved (Hadfield, 2006) or grow disconnected with their own school community (Lieberman and McLaughlin, 1992). While studies have shown teachers‟ appreciation for leadership opportunities, teachers who are involved in networks may sometimes complain of being over-burdened by additional responsibilities (Lieberman and McLaughlin, 1992). This can have negative effects on both individual teachers and their school community. The availability and stability of funding can also be a constraint for any type of network. While economic factors can play a role, sustainability is also affected by factors like commitment, purpose and leadership skills making the entire process of professional collaboration a complicated business. It is also questioned if the tightly structured curriculum and pressure of examinations really allows freedom and flexibility to develop and sustain networks (Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Reynolds, 2010). The benefits of networking and collaborative learning process make it
91
attractive to many of those involved. No research has been conducted so far in schools in Pakistan to investigate whether networking would be a useful way to promote learning. Are there any existing models of practice available? What problems may be obstacles to the growth of networks in schools of Pakistan? All of these questions highlight the areas of potential research in Pakistan.