The watershed skirmishing between educational administrators and instructional staff comports with a mission to teach civil and academic literacy; they are constrained by a culturally bland organizational climate, structure and governance. This position is diametrically challenged if educational leaders and their cohorts neglect to anchor ways of reconstructing pathways of thinking for collaboration within and outside of the organization. The present stay in schooling policy is veered by bureaucratic accountability in planning, teaching and evaluation from NCLB mandates. Vendors of educational materials---such as textbook and software carpetbaggers---, inferential statisticians---layering etic data to support an agenda---, and band aid concessions accretes into dysfunctional organizational structure, policies and programs. This essay will explain why a hodgepodge structure, policy and program of an organization will not develop a curriculum to increase student achievement and performance. Inasmuch an unbalanced learning system lacks direction---purpose---; networked learning approaches juxtaposed with students and teachers are necessary ingredients for a palatable learning organization (Dorner, 1989).

    Because of the overshadowing negative image attached to any phrase or word that includes “networked or networking” connote social networking---My Space, Face Book and Open Diary, to name a few----with the exclusion of TeachStreet, LinkedIn and Twitter and the like---don’t support curricular goals. Siemens and Conole (2011) concur that “…the Internet has remade how society creates and shares content and how people communicate and interact” (p. i). Amazingly all of them share more than a causal relationship by participating in a forum of congeniality, respect and information-gathering-sharing which can benefit organizational learning. Van der Krogt (as cited in Skerlavaj & Dimovski, 2006) describes how learning networks are nested in an organization’s development of programs, climate and member’s disposition about roles and relationships. The very nature of social networking for learning constitutes a virtual dialogue which tears-off-the-clothes---boundaries---to dialogue with the other learning/teaching experience (Jones & Hodgson, 2008).

    In the schools interdependent brokering roles are formed into dyads of hierarchal stations of ”centre-periphery” which stimulate flexible decisions about how each part will contribute to the goals of the curriculum (p. 95). Network learning theorists admit that face-to-face encounters are hard habits to let go but stress the interlocking return from trust and strengthen ties---knowledgeable learning strategies---which do more than mimic brick-and-mortar environments. Jones et. al (2008) states that “[k]knowledge is not simply transmitted or transferred across the network: it is negotiated and the marks of its personal and situated origin are essential parts of the exchange through dialogue” (p. 101). Though most of the discussion has been on networked learning and curriculum this does not limit its utility for educational leadership. While teachers assume the facilitator of the learner’s acquisition of new knowledge instructional leaders share the gains from the process with counterparts linked in association as they journey together---connected by a “…certain closeness and unity of purpose” (p. 90).

     Transactional leaders distinguish themselves by rewarding, promoting and appraising follower groups---lead teachers, department heads, SAC’s---to buttress support for dispositions, proposals and organizational governance. Take the situation of present day weight placed on norm referenced measurements to predict performance, indeed to guide curriculum to that end. Traditional teachers might feel entrenched in their styles of instruction and be unwilling to cooperate or employ subterfuge when developing scripted pacing guides to interact with administration and students. Their narrow understanding of curriculum planning forgets that it is in the classroom where the teacher/student convenes in an assessment to accelerate student’s motivation to learn. Data gathered from these classroom interventions are communicated by local schools to state and federal regulators and the implications derived from these muddled assessments can be detrimental to instructional strategies for achieving student progress---AYP’s (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005).

    Transformational leaders seize the impetus stirred through intervention, interdependence, conciliation and meaningful engagement by; collaboration and consensus building dialogue (Jones, Ferreday & Hodgson, 2008). Recently our school has endorsed the Skyward software to use instant messaging, blogs, alert/flash reports, financial updates per department and pacing of curricular goals. Issues that are not unique to a particular site-base management permit educational leaders to “chat” informally without threat of humiliation for “best” practices in the “worst” situations. Even if all do not participate the networking becomes part of the organizational learning experience which is incrementally shared in reports, policies and blackboards.

     Ravenscroft (2011) advocates for the digitalizing of education by engaging learners in “conversation and interaction” deliberating in a stream of intersubjectivity---a dialogue with new and different points of understanding---that information communications technology (ICT) orchestrate life-long learning (Downes, as cited in Ravenscroft, 2011, p. 141; Siemens, as cited in Ravenscroft, 2011). Let’s revisit the humdrum of the rigid school day of the teacher in the aforementioned scenario---implementation of the teacher proof curriculum---because of their valueless instructional strategies “…learners can ‘succeed’ without becoming either involved or thoughtful…” (Kohn, 2011, p. 32). ICT facilitates networked learning to inquire of the student’s interest as an effective path to understanding and critical thinking. Students, teachers and educational leaders enter into a not so formal and authoritarian posture that will extinguish motivations but to enhance student performance.

     Jones, Ferreday and Hodgson (2008) review the hierarchal and vertical dimensions of networked learning in educational organizations. Connecting stakeholders---collectives and collaterals---to the purpose of achieving learning goals distributes communication and collaboration---to the process of student learning and declines to link achievement solely with standardized exams. In the whole school approach networked learning strategies emphasizes the skills, knowledge and dispositions of the leader’s cooperation and dialogue with the social environment (pp. 91-92). This trickled down educational leadership permeates throughout the learning systems---federal, state and local levels---prioritizing ideas and sharing data generates a conscious commitment from bottom-to-top. Dorner (1989) explains why “contextual dependencies”---teaching and learning---are markers for educational leaders to stay-in-their-lane and design develop and implement instructional activities to achieve gains in achievement.

Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson and McConnel (as cited in Drexler, 2010) describes the networked learning approach as “…learning in which information communication technology is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors, between a learning community and its learning resources” (p. 370). Teachers and students come together as equals in an inquiry and acquiring exchange of active versus passive engagement in their personal learning (p. 370). Whereas classroom management is constructed to provide a level of comfort to the teacher networked learning puts the student in the driving seat---responsible learners motivated once inspired to control their academic growth.      

    Networked learning is an organizational enterprise because its climate, structure and governance must be an environment conducive for change. As a result of an organization assuming networked learning as instructional strategy actors will change the way each consider them as a part of the digital reality.

The digital revolution has rung the bell for computer assisted information gathering with consequences both qualitative and potentially rewarding assets to organizational learning. Its ramifications echoed by the habits, relationships and attitudes of educational leaders forge the vanguard in preparing ---the content, context and socialization of academic freedom ---to make an exciting departure from just schooling to educating students to learn. The content enthralled by high-stakes accountability testing denigrates the pedagogy of education. Contextual approaches enthusiastically link teacher-student exchanges for synthesizing, transforming and facilitating learning and re-learning---meaningful knowledge for the individual student.

References

Dorner, D. (1989). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex

     situations. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal    

    learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy.                

    Australasian Journal of  Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385. Retrieved from

    http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html

Hoyle, J.R., Bjork, L.G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as ceo:

    Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Jones, C.R., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008, April). Networked learning a     

    relational approach: Weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

    24(2), 90-102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00271.x

Kohn, A. (2011, April 27). Poor teaching for poor children…In the name of school  

    Reform. Education Week & Harvard Graduate School of Education, 32-33.  

    Retrieved from www.edweek.org/go/commentary

Ravenscroft, A. (2011, March). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to

    understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning.

Siemens, G., & Conole, G. (2011, March). Editorial. Special issue – connectivism:

    Design and delivery of social networked learning. International Review of 

    Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), i-1v. AERA SIG Communication 

    of Research database.

Skerlavaj, M., & Dimovski, V. (2006). Social network approach to organizational

    learning. Journal of Applied Business Research, 22(2), 89-98. Retrieved from

    Business Source Complete database.