Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its

nature, forms, limitations and effects

Andy Hargreaves

To cite this article: Andy Hargreaves (2019) Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research
on its nature, forms, limitations and effects, Teachers and Teaching, 25:5, 603-621, DOI:
10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499

Published online: 11 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11102

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 82 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
TEACHERS AND TEACHING
2019, VOL. 25, NO. 5, 603–621
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499

Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature,

forms, limitations and effects
Andy Hargreavesa,b
a
Lynch School of Education,Boston College,USA; bFaculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article reprises and reflects on 30 years of the author’s work on Received 19 June 2019
teacher collaboration. The distinctive nature of this work has not been Accepted 26 June 2019
in making a case for teacher collaboration in terms of its benefits for KEYWORDS
students, teachers, or educational change. These arguments are widely Teacher collaboration;
available elsewhere. Rather it has examined ways of collaborating that professional culture;
are available to teachers, how formal or informal collaboration should professional capital;
be, how collaborative efforts can be misused or misdirected, and what collegiality
factors must be considered when deliberately designing teacher col-
laboration so it will have the most beneficial effects. The article dis-
cusses the explanatory and strategic power of three concepts in
particular—contrived collegiality, professional capital, and collabora-
tive professionalism. Conclusions are drawn about next steps for edu-
cational research in terms of establishing clear typologies of teacher
collaboration in relation to their impact and appropriateness in differ-
ent circumstances.

Introduction
Nothing matters more for young people in schools than the quality of their teachers
(Schleicher, 2018a). As OECD and other commentaries point out, a strong teaching profes-
sion is a defining characteristic of high performing education systems (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, 2011; Tucker, 2019). Sufficient pay, high status,
public regard, and rigorous preparation are key elements of what makes a strong teaching
profession. But what also matters is the quantity and quality of professional collaboration
within the job itself. Paradoxically, compared to other professions, teachers lack both genuine
autonomy and also collaborative agreement on professional norms, standards and judgments
(Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016). Andreas Schleicher (2018b, p. 96) argues that 'rarely do teachers
own their professional standards to the extent other professionals do, and rarely do they work
with the level of autonomy and in the collaborative work culture that people in other knowl-
edge-based professions take for granted'.
Research since the 1980s has demonstrated that teachers who work in collaborative
cultures tend to secure higher results in reading and mathematics, compared to
colleagues who work in cultures of individualism, and that the social capital of teacher
collaboration adds value to individual human capital in terms of impact on student

CONTACT Andy Hargreaves [email protected] Boston College and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
604 A. HARGREAVES

achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Day, Sammons, Stobart, Kington, & Gu, 2007;
Leana, 2011; Rosenholtz, 1989). As the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (2016) concludes from its TALIS studies, ‘a collaborative culture within
the school shows one of the strongest associations with teachers’ self-efficacy and job
satisfaction’. What is less clear is what collaboration looks like, how it can vary, what are
the relative benefits of different kinds of collaboration, and when collaboration can be
harmful as well as helpful.
In the last 30 years, a lot of my work has tried to explain why teachers should collaborate,
what ways of collaborating are available to them, how formal or informal collaboration should
be, how collaborative efforts can be misused or misdirected, and whether any ways of
collaborating have more impact on students’ and teachers’ learning than others. This article
summarizes the results of these studies, including my most recent research on the nature and
development of collaborative professionalism.

Friendship and output

My interest in collaboration began serendipitously with an undergraduate dissertation
in sociology. In the summer holidays, I was part of a team of four university students
tasked with compiling a map of the underground sewer system of Accrington—a mill
town in Lancashire, England. We worked together, in rotating teams. One pair would
record the heights above sea level of manhole covers (the entry points into the sewers),
as they were then called. The other pair charted the directions of flow of the sewers
underground. The teams were given almost complete autonomy and there was no
intruding supervision. I collected quantitative data from the teams on numbers of
manholes surveyed per day per team, using a cover story that I was doing a statistics
assignment for my degree. I also undertook covert ethnographic observations (probably
ethically unacceptable today) on the actions and patterns of interaction among these
teams who were all in different stages of friendship—friends, potential friends, and
antagonisms (pairs who actively disliked each other). Who would be most productive,
I asked—friends, antagonisms, or the ones in between?
There was already a literature on the connection between social relations on the one hand,
and productivity or output in work teams, on the other. One of these was a classic text on what
became known as the Human Relations School of organizational management. In
Management and the Worker, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) investigated the effects on
productivity of attempts to alter the physical environments of workers at the Western Electric
Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. What is now well known is that the physical
environment assumed less importance as a determinant of productivity than the social
relations among the workers. Even when experimenters made the room colder and turned
down the lights so it was almost impossible to see, productivity still went up because the
workers appreciated someone actually taking an interest in them. Indeed, this phenomenon of
improved results being an effect of the human act of research interest itself became known as
the Hawthorne or Halo effect.
As a result of the experiment, six workers experienced ‘decreased supervision and increased
freedom and hence more opportunity for social interaction than they experienced before’
(Hargreaves, 1972, p. 40). The implications for productivity of these improved social relations
were not straightforward, though. Initially, ‘talking replaced production as a result of which
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 605

two particularly talkative friends (who had been friends before they became workmates) were
expelled’ (p40). A leader then emerged and guided the group to establish and comply with
norms for increased output, in which they were collectively invested.
Reviewing this landmark study, I concluded that ‘there is a definite relationship between
friendship and output’, but that ‘this relationship is complex and is modified by intervening
variables such as personality, the degree of stability of the friendship, affiliative needs,
previous interpersonal relations, possibility for interaction, and so on’ (p48).
My own study discovered that the pair with the highest productivity was, curiously, the
antagonism. It had the highest mean because work partners kept to the task whenever they
could to avoid social interaction. But it also had the highest standard deviation in one of the
tasks, as close proximity required by the task sometimes provoked interruptions through
arguments and conflicts.
The pair that was the strongest friends actually had the lowest mean combined with the
highest standard deviation on the other task in terms of productivity. Its members would work
when they wanted to, sometimes take very long lunch breaks at one of their homes, then try to
compensate later by accelerating their rate of production. The insight here, as in the early
human relations studies, is that greater friendship does not always lead to better collegiality.
In education, Jorges de Lima (2001) concluded we should be ‘forgetting about friendship’
as a desirable goal for strong collegial relations. Indeed, 25 years later, when I undertook
a study of 50 teachers and the emotional aspects of their work, including their emotional
relations with colleagues, I concluded that while ‘teachers seek and enjoy the rewards of
affiliation with colleagues’, when these turn into close friendships, they ‘tend to be built on and
to reinforce like-mindedness instead of also supporting the professional disagreement and
mutual critique that can move teaching forward’ (Hargreaves, 2001).

Divided cultures of teaching

Some years later, when I pursued graduate study, my initial research interest was in
investigating the differences between progressive and traditional teaching styles.
However teachers taught, I became curious about what led them to teach that way.
The theory of symbolic interactionism on which I drew interpreted human actions and
interactions, even baffling ones, as reasonable and meaningful responses to the situa-
tions in which people found themselves, and to the cultures, including work cultures, of
which they were a part (Blumer 1962; Goffman, 1961).
In education, symbolic interactionist interpretations of teaching extended as far back as
Willard Waller’s (1932) classic yet unflattering discussion of what teaching as an occupa-
tion did to teachers in his text on The Sociology of Teaching. In the early 1950s, Howard
Becker, another Chicago sociologist, completed a PhD study that explained the unusual
(but uncannily still relevant) way in which Chicago public school teachers constructed their
careers. When they came out of training, Becker found, new teachers often began working
in areas of inner city deprivation but quickly learned that their best way to progress was to
pursue a lateral career that would take them out to easier schools in the more prosperous
suburbs (Becker, 1952). Not everyone managed this, though, so those who were left behind
started to make situational adjustments to their environment and rationalized that they
were better off where they were. The status of their students as seemingly slow learners
meant that once teachers got a grip on classroom control, they didn’t need to teach as hard
606 A. HARGREAVES

or as fast, prepare as much, or face parental scrutiny, compared to their more upwardly
mobile peers.
Inspired by this literature and an emerging body of ethnographic research among my
contemporaries, I began to interpret the classroom practices I was seeing in terms of
a theory I devised of classroom coping strategies where teachers made strategic responses
to situational constraints and opportunities (Hargreaves, 1977, 1978). These were not
isolated or idiosyncratic responses but were made in relation to patterns adopted by
other teachers in the surrounding work culture through their shared biographies,
identities and careers. By chance, the teachers I wanted to compare were more acces-
sible in middle schools for children aged 9–13 than in conventional 7–11 primary
schools. Though this difference seemed immaterial at first, it turned out to be signifi-
cant. The most important differences among the teachers, I discovered, were not
between those in progressive and traditional schools, but between the upper and
lower ends of both middle schools.
My PhD thesis and subsequent book on Two Cultures of Schooling (Hargreaves,
1986) documented how former high school teachers and former primary school
teachers who had been recruited to staff newly created middle schools, found it hard
to form a unique culture of middle schools that was meant to give young adolescents
a smooth transition from childhood into the teenage years.
An influential literature on secondary school teachers’ cultures had already emerged
in the UK, illustrating that secondary teachers were not all alike, but formed different
and sometimes competing subcultures based on their subject identities, allegiances, and
careers (Goodson, 1983; Goodson & Ball, 1985). Similar forces, I discovered, also
occurred in middle schools. Teachers’ biographies, identities, cultures and career
trajectories led them to repeat, reinforce and even exaggerate their previous primary
and secondary school attachments—with the result that gaps and leaps in children’s
experiences at age 11 in amounts of subject specialization or ability grouping were even
greater in the 9–13 middle school than they were when children had transferred from
primary to secondary schools.
Breaking down silos in cultures of teaching between different subjects, different
levels, or between classroom teachers on the one hand and second language or special
education teachers on the other, for example, remains a constant challenge in efforts to
educate the whole child or integrate the curriculum. Culture and collaboration are
clearly central to any efforts to break down silos between cultures of teaching. They can
also provide ways to counter cultures of individualism in teaching that have been widely
regarded as serious impediments to improvement efforts.

Creating collaborative cultures

In 1987, I moved to Ontario, in Canada. Some years earlier, a key research study by yet
another Chicago sociologist—Dan Lortie (1975)—based on interviews with 94 teachers
in the Greater Boston area of the US, concluded that teaching was characterized by
three interlocking elements: presentism (focusing on the short term), conservatism
(concentrating on small-scale rather than whole-school changes) and individualism
(performing teaching in isolation from other teachers). Teachers in these circumstances
were plagued by what he called ‘uncertainty’.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 607

By the late 1980s, research in the US was starting to indicate that within Lortie’s
trinity of variables that defined the culture of teaching, individualism, and it’s opposite,
collaboration, might be the key one to try and change. Susan Rosenholtz’s (1989)
influential study of 78 Tennessee elementary schools highlighted two kinds of schools
—learning enriched and learning impoverished. The learning enriched ones that got
stronger results in mathematics and literacy after controlling for students’ social back-
ground were more collaborative and able to build stronger senses of confidence or
certainty about good practice. By contrast, in the learning impoverished schools,
teachers worked in isolation and became uncertain and rigid about their practice, as
there were no means to gain regular feedback on performance. Other studies of teacher
collaboration have persistently pointed to positive impact on student achievement (Bryk
& Schneider, 2002; Leana, 2011).
For researchers in the 1990s, undoing individualism and isolation by building more
collaborative cultures in schools was seen as a positive direction, but the persistence of
presentism or shortage of time out of class to work with colleagues was regarded as
a significant obstacle.
By chance, when I arrived to take up my position at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education, the elementary teachers’ unions had successfully bargained for significant
increases in preparation time for teachers away from their classes. Ontario, it seemed,
had now significantly shifted one of Lortie’s variables—presentism, or time. Would
more time out of the classroom give teachers more time to collaborate together, or,
busy as they were, would they continue to use the time individually? Would ameliorat-
ing presentism help reduce individualism?
I interviewed teachers about their uses of preparation time in two suburban districts—
one that was widely regarded as unremarkable; and another that was specifically promoting
collaborative planning. Teachers in the first district used their time to perform more
individual tasks like grading, lesson preparation or contacting parents. Indeed, some
didn’t even want more preparation time because they would have to share their classes
with covering teachers. In the second district, though, with the backing of leadership from
school principals, increased preparation time did enhance collaborative efforts. Leadership,
and not just time alone, was needed to change the culture of teaching (Hargreaves, 1994a).
In 1990, Ontarians elected their first and only socialist government in history.
Educational reform was a significant part of its platform. A profusion of high school
courses, choices and credits had become bewildering for students and the effects of this
had trickled down to younger students in grades 7, 8 and 9 in the form of watered-down
high school methods and fragmented curriculum offerings that sowed the seeds of dropout.
So the government made what it called The Transition Years the centrepiece of its educa-
tional reform strategy. Already committed to broad, orientating standards similar to
common learning outcomes then being developed in parts of the United States, the
Ministry of Education hired a school district researcher, Lorna Earl (who would eventually
create and lead an International Centre for Educational Change with me) and me to
undertake a literature review of best practices and reform strategies for this age group.
Our report advocated both rigour and relevance for this phase of schooling that
would be grounded in new school structures such as interdisciplinary teaching, schools-
within-schools, student mentoring systems, alternative forms of assessment, and
detracking (destreaming). These structures, we argued, would develop greater
608 A. HARGREAVES

engagement for students and create new interactions among teachers that were more
concentrated on students and their learning than subjects and their content
(Hargreaves, Earl, & Ryan, 1996). The Deputy Minister demonstrated his enthusiasm
for the report by distributing it to every school in the province and asking us to follow it
up with an energetic roll-out of presentations and workshops.
We were then asked to evaluate the implementation of our recommendations in a series
of pilot projects. For many classroom teachers on the receiving end of this change, we
learned, the combination of centralized frameworks and initiatives with decentralized roles
and responsibilities seemed bewilderingly contradictory. Portfolio assessments were paral-
leled by standardized tests. Interdisciplinary initiatives ran alongside subject-based report
cards (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning 2001). There had been a lot of restructuring.
But efforts at what I called reculturing the belief system and relationships of teaching to suit
the needs of early adolescents were uneven at best (Hargreaves, 1994b).
Much of the effectiveness of change actually depended on the quality of collaboration.
Cultural change was a pre-requisite for effective structural change. Under excellent leader-
ship, teachers in some schools could make sense of the complexity and ambiguity of the very
broad outcomes, or figure out how to work together as teams with mixed ability classes. The
most enthusiastic of these teachers tended to be younger or taught in marginal subject areas
like special education, counselling, or the arts. They succeeded in maintaining their own core
purposes while still addressing the outcomes and accommodating to the structures. Under
weak or overly controlling leadership, though, many other teachers were fragmented and
frustrated: especially more mature teachers in the conventional, high status and highly tested
subjects of the secondary school curriculum. They tended to interpret reforms literally or
minimally, by making them as similar as possible to existing and already known practices:
replacing three streams between classes to three streams within their classes, for example.
When reculturing worked well, its results were strong and sustained. It brought
teachers together around common goals in support of change that offered profound
benefits to students. Successful reculturing, however, depended on collaborative leader-
ship and embedded professional development in schools and districts that were not yet
consistently evident across the province.
The importance of leadership in establishing collaborative cultures within environ-
ments of top-down reform was further illustrated in our study of the emotions of
teaching in the late 1990s, when we asked teachers about their emotional experiences of
educational change (Hargreaves, 2004). One unsurprising finding was that teachers
were overwhelmingly positive about changes they had initiated themselves, and equally
critical of changes that had been imposed from the district or the government above.
Curiously though, when we investigated where the changes that teachers said were self-
initiated had first begun, almost half of them actually had their origins in a provincial
policy or a district initiative. Whether changes seemed self- initiated or not therefore
depended as much on how well leaders helped teachers develop collective ownership of
them, as on where the changes technically came from.

Critiquing collaboration
Collaboration is not always beneficial, even if its effects are generally positive. In some
countries, it is hard even to mention collaboration without it invoking painful wartime
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 609

memories of collaboration with an enemy. Many leaders are eager to engage their
teachers in collaboration for strategic reasons, but not to empower them through it.
Others want to colonize collaborative efforts with purposes and activities other than
ones teachers might initiate themselves.
In 1989, I was invited by a new established Context Centre led by Milbrey
McLaughlin at Stanford University to contribute to a symposium on professional
communities at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA). The Context Centre wanted to bring together its own growing
team of faculty and graduate students with researchers from the UK who had studied
cultures of subject communities in secondary schools. Two other members of this
group were myself, an ex-pat Brit from Canada, and Berkeley University professor,
Judith Warren Little. At the same time, in the same place, without any prior commu-
nication, we each showed up with very similar but not completely identical papers and
ideas that would leave a lasting impact in the field.
Judith picked up from Lortie’s legacy and wrote a theoretical paper discussing the
persistence of individualism in teaching. There had been efforts to create more collabora-
tion since Lortie’s time, she argued, but these had been ‘conceptually amorphous and
ideologically sanguine’ (Little, 1990). Most memorably, she developed a much-cited
continuum of collaboration that showed how most efforts at collaboration were restricted
to storytelling or sharing ideas, materials and practices. This was because teaching was still
dominated by ‘norms of politeness and non-interference’. At the other end were more
scarce efforts to commit to the literal meaning of collaboration—co-labouring together—
through joint work rather than superficial talk. Much collaboration, she claimed, didn’t
amount to much, and was too weak and underdeveloped to make a difference.
The OECD’s 2013 TALIS studies (Teaching and Learning in Schools) that surveyed
teachers of 13 year olds about their perceptions of their work practices and conditions
came to similar conclusions (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 2016). The most frequent collaborative practices reported by teachers
were discussing individual students and sharing resources. Less frequently, they
engaged in team teaching and collaborative professional development. Least frequent
of all were joint activities and classroom observations.
In the same AERA conference symposium, drawing on my work with a graduate
student, Ruth Dawe, where we had evaluated the coaching practices being used in
a university partnership with school districts, and also examined some of the colla-
borative practices I had seen in the preparation time study, I put forward a new concept
that was critical of some aspects of collaboration. I labelled it, contrived collegiality
(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Hargreaves, 1994a, 1991; Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990).
The article compared contrived collegiality to more authentic and spontaneous
collaborative cultures.

Collaborative cultures comprise evolutionary relationships of openness, trust, and support

among teachers where they define and develop their own purposes as a community.
Contrived collegiality consists of administratively contrived interactions among teachers
where they meet and work to implement the curricula and instructional strategies developed
by others. Collaborative cultures foster teacher and curriculum development. Contrived
collegiality enhances administrative control. (p227)
610 A. HARGREAVES

Collaborative cultures were established through informality and spontaneity around

interests and activities that teachers created themselves, and were flexibly organized in
time and space. Contrived collegiality, meanwhile, was formal, predetermined, and
fixed in time and space in pre-set meetings through the exercise of administrative
power. In the preparation time study, for example, some of the principals in the cluster
of collaborative schools tried to force collaboration upon their teachers—instructing
them where and when to collaborate and what to collaborate about. In one school,
teachers who were already meeting to collaborate together were then instructed to keep
minutes of their meetings. The result was that they collaborated less.
The collaborative planning initiative in the Ontario school district we studied
represented the early stages of a wider movement to design collaboration deliberately.
The knowledge that professional collaboration led to increased student achievement
prompted a growing number of researchers, consultants and school systems to develop
or adopt specific structures and designs to support teacher collaboration. By far the
most popular and widespread of all these designs was one that was named professional
learning communities (PLCs). Although there was a respectable literature on the nature
and importance of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), organizational
learning (Senge, 2006), and professional communities (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001),
the first person to bring together the terms of professional, learning, and community
into a single idea was educational change expert, Shirley Hord (1997).
Hord defined a professional learning community as something where teachers
inquired into how to improve their practice together and took collective responsibility
for implementing what they discovered. From the mid-1990s, though, former school
superintendent, Rick Dufour along with Becky Dufour and Bob Eaker, wrote program-
matic handbooks and developed associated workshops that turned PLCs into
a particular method and set of meetings (e.g. DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008). These
consisted of establishing clear goals, promoting team-building, gathering data, under-
taking problem-solving, and designing interventions.
In practice, although these kinds of PLCs became widely adopted globally, the results
were mixed, at best. Many top-down systems, especially in the US, rushed to take up
PLCs as a way to implement their policies (Datnow, 2011; Wood, 2007). In these cases, in
high- threat policy environments, PLCs were often driven by principals who prioritized
accountability agendas directed to short-term achievement gains on narrow metrics of
success (Daly, Der-Martirosian, Ong-Dean, Park, & Wishard-Guerra, 2011). In response,
teachers withheld their trust, restricted their participation, or left the schools and the
profession altogether. This may explain the findings of a survey conducted by the Boston
Consulting Group (2014) which showed that among teachers, collaborative professional
learning experiences were only half as popular as conventional workshops, and more than
half of all teachers surveyed actively disliked PLCs. By comparison, PLCs attracted much
stronger support from administrators. In the high-stakes environment of US educational
reform, at least, PLCs often became little more than a way to try and get teachers to
commit to things that administrators wanted them to do.
Even where the stakes were less high, though, such as in Canada, exporting a PLC
model that was originally designed to fit a top-down US environment, still gave rise to
many problems. For example, when we evaluated the 13 year-old, $80m per year
Alberta School Improvement Initiative in 2009, while all of the participating districts
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 611

had submitted collaborative proposals, they varied a lot. So we selected three districts
for closer study to highlight this variation (Hargreaves et al., 2009; Hargreaves &
Shirley, 2012). In one of these, project resources were distributed across the schools
to release small amounts of time for many teachers to collaborate in school time around
their own interests, with the ironic result that the district’s superintendent got closer to
the practice and knew his educators more as they worked together with each other. The
other two districts were more top-down in their approach. One of these allocated the
lion’s share of its resources to a single co-ordinator and to hiring the Dufour team to
train the district in PLCs. The results were less impressive and did not spread much
beyond the coordinator or the training event to the rest of the district’s teachers.
In contrast to these critical responses to PLCs, when leadership has emphasized
schools’ and teachers’ own goals and included teachers in decision-making, PLCs have
energized educators and led to improvements in outcomes. This was evident in one of
eight schools we studied for a Spencer Foundation funded project on educators’
experiences of educational change in innovative and traditional high schools
(Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). In a newly established school, the principal, who had
completed a graduate dissertation on learning organizations, deliberately designed the
school and its operations on learning organization principles (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006;
Hargreaves, 2003; Senge, 2006). Here, professional learning communities were not just
a collection of meetings but a way of life. Teachers taught cohorts of ninth grade
students in collaborative teams of four. They planned curriculum, taught the students in
flexible groupings, and discussed students’ progress together. Problems in the school
became points for shared inquiry, not rushed intervention. Disappointing data revealing
increasing student absenteeism, for example, were not suppressed but shared openly
with parents so everyone could take collective responsibility for solving problems
together. Teachers cared about each other as people, and encouraged each other to
take time off when they were sick, reassured by the fact that their substitute teacher
would not be a stranger who might wreck their class, but someone who would just
become one more member of the 4-person team that worked together.
The strongest collaborative communities of teachers can withstand and even resist
adverse policy environments. In the midst of our Spencer Foundation study, for
example, the Ontario schools suddenly found themselves subject to the control of
a newly elected populist government. This government imposed a new curriculum at
breakneck speed, drove experienced teachers into early retirement by shaming the
profession in the media, and cut back on teachers’ preparation time outside of class.
In response, teachers embarked on a period of work-to-rule where they refused to
participate in extra-curricular activities, meetings, or professional learning events. Yet
in the midst of all this, one highly collaborative school in our sample was still able to
convene teachers for staff meetings. It did this by starting the meetings with two
teachers’ satirical presentation of a sock-puppet show, starring a talking fish that
hilariously mocked all the government’s latest policies.
This school, and the purpose-built innovative one, though, were very much excep-
tions to the wider policy movement in Ontario, New York State (where the US half of
our Spencer study sample was located), and beyond, in which high stakes account-
ability, standardization and micromanagement of teachers’ time played a large part. My
book, Teaching In the Knowledge Society, described research from this Spencer
612 A. HARGREAVES

Foundation funded study showing how these forces had many negative effects, includ-
ing on teacher collaboration (Hargreaves, 2003). Although the preparation time study
had shown that giving teachers’ extra time does not guarantee they will collaborate
more, taking that time away or micromanaging it, led teachers to collaborate less.
In summary, a growing body of research was pointing to how teacher collaboration
could be too comfortable in maintaining Little’s norms of politeness on the one hand,
and too contrived and controlling in imposing political pressure or bureaucratic will on
teachers, on the other. What would come next in my own work and elsewhere would be
efforts and understandings about how to push collaboration further, and give it a bit
more edge, not in ways that undermined teachers’ relationships but so that these
relationships could be strengthened and enriched.

The cutting edge of collaboration

Over the past 10 years, my research, along with other research in the field—especially
that of my colleague Michael Fullan—has started to uncover and examine examples of
educational collaboration that are not just between practices that are too comfortable or
contrived, but somehow above and beyond these polar opposites.
In 2012, Michael and I wrote a book called Professional Capital (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012). Other than one passing mention in educational leadership, and
a couple of articles and PhD dissertations in health, professional capital turned out to
be a completely new idea that, according to The Grawemeyer Award, was the idea in
education that year most likely to have the greatest worldwide impact.
We used the metaphor of capital to establish the point that in teaching as elsewhere, if
we want a return, we have to make an investment. Unfortunately, we argued, in the US,
and England especially, educational change was being driven by the wrong kind of capital
—business capital—where public education reform was underpinned by the intent to
increase returns to the private sector. This occurred directly, in the form of ownership of
proliferating charter schools and academies. It also occurred indirectly. First, parents fled
from the public sector in response to government strategies to identify and label more
and more district-run public schools as failing. Second, efforts were made to lower the
cost of public education by recruiting and turning over large cohorts of young teachers on
much lower salaries than their more experienced counterparts.
By contrast, we argued, professional capital had three components. Human capital
was about the quality of individuals; their competence, knowledge, qualifications and
commitment. Decisional or decision-making capital was about teachers’ professional
judgment and how it developed through experience and professional learning and
coaching over time. This, we said, justified teachers having longer careers rather than
shorter ones. Although US data contradicted the value of decisional capital, because it
indicated that teacher effectiveness hit a plateau after about four years, other countries,
with higher quality and more strongly funded professional development, indicated that
teachers reached their peak much later, well into in mid-career.
The most critical component was the third one, of social capital. Social capital is the
capital people have together through their networks of learning, strength of mutual
support, shared professional development, and firm foundations of trust. Social capital,
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 613

we pointed out, adds value to individual human capital—but as we showed back in the
early 1990s, not any kind of social capital or professional collaboration will do.
Two insights about collaboration pulled our work forward. First, Michael Fullan and
I looked at how people could both pull and push improvement, not hierarchically, but
laterally, peer to peer—pulling each other in by inspiration and motivation to engage in
interesting work, and pushing each other on and up to ever-higher standards of
performance together. The culmination of this thinking was to be found in what we
learned about creative attempts to combine collaboration with competition.
From 2007, I had been working with Alma Harris and Alan Boyle on a large project
across 8 countries and 3 sectors (business, sport and education) to discover the secrets of
high performance in circumstances that many might regard as less than favourable
(Hargreaves, Boyle & Harris, 2014). When we collected data from Cricket Australia—the
national cricket organization of Australia—we were introduced to a new way in which
collaboration can contribute to unusually high performance. Following two economists,
Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996), Cricket Australia’s business and media specialist
called the strategy co-opetition. Co-opetition was about collaborating with competitors to
achieve a common goal together. One of Cricket Australia’s leading competitors on the field
was India. But off the field, India was also Australia’s major source of media revenue for
televised performances. The tighter the games were, the more viewers would be attracted to
watching them. So Australia invested in developing the cricket talent of India so it would
reach Australia’s standard—producing close-fought contests that viewers would enjoy.
This unusual aspect of collaboration was not confined to this one example. A well-
known alternative US craft beer brewing company promoted the brands of its micro-
brewing competitors as well as its own in order to draw more customers away from the
standardized breweries to the benefit of their own alternative sector. Burnley Football
Club in England developed anti-racist community initiatives in collaboration with its
local rival, Blackburn Rovers. And, in education, the London Borough of Hackney
raised the district’s educational performance from being the worst in the England to
standing above the national average, by contractually requiring and culturally expecting
principals of competing schools to collaborate with each other in raising each other’s
performance as well as their own. The result was that all schools’ performance
improved, parents stopped sending their children away to other districts, and they
committed to supporting the schools in their own community instead.
This research and the ideas about pushing and pulling, and co-opetition, were
pointing to ways in which teacher and school collaboration could be tightened and
deepened by deliberate actions and designs, rather than simply leaving collaborative
efforts to the spontaneous and informal initiatives of teachers themselves. Structures
and policies, we were finding, were not always impediments to effective collaboration,
but, developed in the right way, they could also be considerable assets. The bringing
together of structure and culture, and of formality and informality, led to the develop-
ment of a new idea of collaborative professionalism.

Collaborative professionalism
Unlike professional capital, collaborative professionalism did not originate in my own
writing or research. In 2015, after a long period of industrial action against funding cuts
614 A. HARGREAVES

associated with the government’s austerity strategy, the Ontario Ministry of Education
produced a memorandum stating its intention to establish, with its partners, including
teacher unions, administrator organizations and school district leaders, ‘a vision for
collaborative professionalism that improves student achievement and well-being.’ Their
deliberations led to the following definition of collaborative professionalism.

Collaborative Professionalism in Ontario is defined as professionals—at all levels of the

education system—working together, sharing knowledge, skills and experience to improve
student achievement, and the well-being of both students and staff. Collaborative
Professionalism values the voices of all and reflects an approach in support of our shared
responsibility to provide equitable access to learning for all. All staff are valued and have
a shared responsibility as they contribute to collaborative learning cultures (Ontario
Ministry of Education, 2016).

From 2007 to 2011, and then again from 2014–2018, my Boston College colleagues and
I had the opportunity to undertake research and development with 10 (about a seventh)
of Ontario school districts. The methodology for this extensive work is reported else-
where (Hargreaves & Braun, 2012; Hargreaves, Shirley, Wangia, Bacon, & D’Angelo,
2018), but one crucial component of it involved writing detailed case studies of up to
10,000 words for each district. This subsequently enabled us to examine how aspects of
teaching, leadership and educational change had developed over time. Although colla-
boration among educators was strongly present in both periods, the form the collabora-
tion took changed significantly. More and more, collaboration seemed to be moving not
just towards the definition of collaborative professionalism established in the Ministry of
Education memorandum, but also beyond it.
For example, our 2011 report acknowledged how professional learning communities
(PLCs) had been defined in the province’s philosophy of Education for All in 2005. The
term professional learning community, the report argued, refers to:

a way of operating that emphasizes the importance of nurturing and celebrating the work
of each individual staff person and of supporting the collective engagement of staff in such
activities as the development of a shared vision of schooling and learning, capacity
building, problem identification, learning and about students, teaching, and learning
identifying related issues and problems and debating strategies that could bring about
real change in the organization.(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005)

Apart from the inclusion of debating, this definition of professional learning commu-
nities involved nurturing, celebrating, supporting, sharing and learning. This kind of
collaboration provides reassurance while avoiding unpleasant or difficult subjects. It
treats all teachers as implicitly equal, which makes it hard to acknowledge that expertise
is hard-won, unevenly distributed, and warrants the respect that should be accorded to
anyone with an especially impressive professional knowledge base.
By the time of the later study, educators remarked that their conversations were
more focused and action oriented. Collaborative inquiry was now widespread, strongly
supported by Ministry policy and by documents that provided guidance for educators
(Donohoo, 2013). Teachers were more often the drivers of their own collaboration now.
Three districts provide contrasting examples.
In one district in Ontario’s far north, we joined a principal and two teachers as they
reviewed student work and literacy assessments in their PLC. ‘We get substitute
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 615

teachers in so that our teachers can work collaboratively’, the principal explained.
‘Teachers get to pick their topics based on student data and then their interests.’ The
data include test scores, report cards, anecdotal observations, and other assessments.
This PLC had a protocol for examining student work. The team looked at assess-
ments, thought about the curriculum and instruction, and then reflected on if and how
instruction should be changed to meet student needs and inform future lesson plan-
ning. All of these conversations were grounded in the assessment data. ‘I personally love
the synergy of that team,’ the principal explained. “They’re very comfortable to press
one another’s thinking. They’re very comfortable saying ‘I agree or I don’t agree.’ You
saw it a couple of times, a teacher saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to do it that way.
I’m going to try this instead.’’ The principal probed and encouraged, asking questions
like, ‘What happens next?’ to keep the discussion moving.
Then, the teachers suddenly stopped the PLC in mid-stream to move the discussion
right to the students themselves. A kindergarten teacher was curious why a student gave
a particular answer for their reading comprehension assessment. She decided to go
down the hall to ask the student about how she approached, thought about, and
responded to the question. The teacher learned that there’s probably been some over-
thinking on the student’s part, but that the wording of the question may also have been
confusing. Back in the PLC, the teacher incorporated the student’s perceptions in
discussions about the team’s plans for future support in reading comprehension.
Teachers, the principal, and students too had now become part of the PLC.
A second district infused collaborative professionalism into its PLCS by having
participants work together to engage with multi-media and technology to supplement
science instruction, spur student interest and situate learning in the real world.
A teacher put it like this:

It allowed us to meet with other science teachers from other schools and see what worked
for them that may not have worked for us. We shared stories. We shared what worked,
and what didn’t work. We brought together ideas. We’ve made friends, we’re closer, and
that, to me, is what’s really important. Then we take it back to the class and the kids are
just eating it up.

There is a fine line between where a PLC stops being a formal set of meetings and turns
into a genuine a culture of collaborative inquiry where activities become pervasive and
embedded. For example, an Ontario Ministry document in 2014 argued that, ‘through
collaborative inquiry, educators work together to improve their understanding of what
learning is (or could be), generate evidence of what’s working (and what’s not), make
decisions about next steps and take action to introduce improvements and innovations.’
Since 2011, the commitment to collaborative professional learning has delved deeper
into principles, protocols and processes and started to include all staff in districts, from
educational assistants to system leaders. For example, a director in a third district tried
to run it like a learning organization where feedback was constant and everyone learned
from each other. At the heart of the district’s work was a team of consultants who each
worked with a family of schools, and instructional coaches who were assigned to three
schools each. The consultants and coaches collaborated on working with individual
teachers to reflect on and share their practice with larger school groups on professional
development days. At the school and district levels, the coaches and consultants worked
616 A. HARGREAVES

in interdisciplinary and inclusive teams representing different roles and identities to

implement projects, initiatives and school-driven inquiries in the context of being an
effective learning organization.
For example, schools were expected to undertake their own inquiries into mathe-
matics topics like number sense. District leaders mirrored this expectation by under-
taking their own inquiries. The Director was candid about inspecting his own
leadership in this sense.
As a leader, I thought I’ve participated with many schools in coaching and training. I said,
“Are we actually applying some of those skills in our Exec Council team meeting?” “No,
we’re not.” “We’re not even modelling and using the tools that we’ve been trained in our
team.” I said, “Am I using the right protocols to help facilitate?” I had to look at it in terms
of my role in terms of facilitating my team—so being very intentional around my leader-
ship behaviours with my class.

Being ‘deliberate’ and ‘intentional’ about how to build a more effective team was crucial
to strengthening trust, the director felt. So too was developing ‘a proper protocol to
facilitate [conversations] because we know ahead of time what the purpose of the
conversation is and whether the person has had a chance to gain advice, and then
trust their work away from the table when they come back with a recommendation.’
Part of the approach to establishing greater trust was in demonstrating these
practices and protocols through example.
Some of us have become very visible about what our inquiry is currently. Some super-
intendents actually share it with their learning team structures as you’re developing your
own inquiry. This is the inquiry I’m working on. The visibility of that shows the vulner-
ability that I’m a learner, too. Because of my position, I’m not the expert, but I should be
the lead learner in the organization.

Within the context of being a learning organization, it was important to see colleagues
with dissident perspectives as professionals holding views that should be actively
solicited. ‘We tend to hear the voices that resonate with us—the early adopters that
are moving forward’, the director reflected, ‘but not the 20% or so who are less
enthusiastic’1 The director described an upcoming meeting with educational assistants
and their union that was designed to address this issue.
We’re going out to listen to those who’ve given us some feedback, that are not engaged,
that are not feeling that their well-being is being considered. We’re going to take a risk to
listen to them with their union leader. We know it’ll be difficult (but, we’re asking) “What’s
the structure we’re going to create to try to give you a voice as an educational assistant in
our system?” We think it’s important enough to hear their voice and to figure out how
they can be part of the solution.

In all three cases, collaborative inquiry was not merely a process to look at data to lift
scores in literacy and mathematics, but also a way for learning to permeate the whole
organization. It was enacted and valued by administrators themselves. It involved open
and challenging dialogue that admitted vulnerability and gaps in expertise, that in turn
called forth the knowledge and expertise of colleagues. It required deeper informal trust
on the one hand, and more precise formal protocols and procedures on the other. This
and other PLCs now reflect collaborative professionalism in their broader purposes, in
the extent to which they incorporate teacher involvement and leadership, in how they
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 617

start to draw in students, and in how collaboration permeates the whole life of the
school. Conversations are more open and direct. Talk leads to action.
This is what Michael O'Connor and I found in a contemporaneous study for the
WISE Foundation of reputationally strong examples of deliberately designed collabora-
tion—such as lesson study, collaborative planning or cooperative learning among
educators—in five different countries and their cultures (Hargreaves & O'Connor
2017, 2018). Listening to participants describe how collaborative practices had evolved,
we saw how they had progressed towards our own revised and now more robust
definition of collaborative professionalism (compared to its original definition in
Ontario) that was reflected in this evidence.
In collaborative professionalism, educators did not merely talk and share; they
engaged reflectively in Judith Warren Little’s joint work together. More and more
collaborative work was driven by teachers rather than by administrators.
Administrators were now also undertaking demanding collaborative inquiry of their
own together and not just leading their teachers to engage in it. Professional conversa-
tions were neither too comfortable nor too contrived. Nor were they simply a balanced
mid-point in between these things. Dialogue became deep and demanding, yet trusting
and respectful at the same time. Collaborative professionalism was no longer about a set
of PLC meetings, but about collaborative inquiry and action, and collective responsi-
bility, as defining the essence of professional life. In collaborative professionalism,
formal protocols and informal processes worked together. Instead of contriving and
constraining teachers’ professional interactions, protocols and structures were designed
to enrich them (see also Datnow & Park, 2018).

Conclusion and implications

So what have we learned over 30 years of research into collaboration among educators?
For almost a century, the human relations school of management has revealed that
people perform better in their work when others take an interest in them and that there is
a strong relationship between friendship and output, though it is far from straightfor-
ward. Close friends don’t always make the most productive colleagues, and vice versa.
By the beginning of the 1990s, however, research began to show that a longstanding
culture of individualism could sometimes be transformed into a culture of collabora-
tion, and that the consequences of this for student achievement and teacher motivation
and engagement were generally positive.
Starting with my own and Judith Warren Little’s research, however, the 1990s also
saw the emergence of critiques of collaboration. Researchers who have held allegiances
to school administrators and policy-makers took up one side of the critique and
complained that teachers were too polite and too afraid of external evaluation and
accountability to collaborate properly or even to collaborate at all (e.g. Dufour, 1992).
Researchers like myself who collected data mainly from teachers, argued that collabora-
tion was too often employed as a tool of administrative control, especially in circum-
stances of top-down reform seeking short-term political gains.
One of the greatest impediments to collaboration and educational change, it is often
argued, is time, but my own research in Canada revealed that while time away from
class is usually a necessary condition for effective collaboration, it is not sufficient.
618 A. HARGREAVES

Leadership also has to encourage, engage and empower teachers in the collaborative
quest. However, reducing teachers’ time out of class makes it almost certain that
teachers will collaborate less. And since teachers can and do collaborate to resist bad
reforms as well as to implement good ones, it is not surprising that populist govern-
ments seeking to strip back the public sector introduce measures that restrict educators’
capacity to collaborate. These include increasing class sizes and associated individual
workloads, reducing preparation time, and using austerity measures to restrict educa-
tors’ travel to conferences or other schools.
Over the past 25 years, following the findings that collaboration can increase student
achievement and reduce teacher conservatism towards change, many specific designs
have emerged to initiate or increase collaborative activity in schools. These include but
are not restricted to professional learning communities, collaborative planning, learning
walks, instructional rounds, collaborative inquiry, lesson study, school networks, data
teams, self-evaluation processes, and peer review. Our research on collaborative pro-
fessionalism is one of the first efforts to collate and compare some of these designs in
a deliberate way and to see what can be learned from them.
One next step in research on collaboration might be to compile a more compre-
hensive inventory or typology of teacher collaboration designs and to analyse them
in terms of their relative impact and effectiveness. Such research on teacher colla-
boration and on teacher professional practice generally might also usefully extend
beyond Northern and Western settings to include the Global South and the East as
well as the North and West, and to investigate online as well as face-to-face forms
of collaboration.
A step forward for policy and system leaders would be to engage in long-term
building of collaboration as a context for implementing present and future policies.
In democracies, while governments and policies will always be prone to change, and
even to overturning each other’s policies, investing in building collaborative cultures in
education will make it more likely that all policies, other than truly cynical ones that
have no intention of improving teaching and learning at all, will have greater chances of
being implemented successfully over time.
We are in a period of educational change when collaboration seems to have become
the answer to almost everything. If collaborative efforts prove insufficient for or
ineffective in the face of the complex challenges we now face of deeper learning and
greater wellbeing, then teachers will retreat back to their own classrooms, and policy
makers will return to top-down solutions. It is important now, therefore, not just that
teachers collaborate, but that they collaborate well, and that school and system leaders
enable and empower them to do that.

Note
1. (1.8).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 619

Notes on contributor
Andy Hargreaves has studied and written about the teaching profession and researched teacher
collaboration for four decades, based in the UK, then Canada and the United States. His 1994
book, Changing Teachers, Changing Times received the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education (AACTE) Outstanding Writing Award. His 2003 book, Teaching In The
Knowledge Society received the Outstanding Book Award from the American Educational
Research Association, Division B, Curriculum Studies and the Choice Outstanding Book
Award from the American Libraries Association. His 2012 book with Michael Fullan
on Professional Capital received the 2015 Grawemeyer Award, the highest value book award in
the field, as well as AACTE's Outstanding Book Award and The Award of Merit from the
International Leadership Association.

References
Becker, H. S. (1952). The career of the Chicago public school teacher. American Journal of
Sociology, 57(5), 470–477.
Blumer, H. (1962). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and method. San Francisco: University of
California Press.
Boston Consulting Group. (2014). Teachers know best: Teachers’ views on professional devel-
opment. http://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/article/teachers-know-best-teachers-views-
professional-development
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A key resource for improvement. New York:
Russell Sage.
Daly, A. J., Der-Martirosian, C., Ong-Dean, C., Park, V., & Wishard-Guerra, A. (2011). Leading
under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in under-
performing schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171–206.
Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of
accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards
equitable and excellent schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting
lives, work and effectiveness. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Donohoo, J. (2013). Collaborative inquiry for educators: A facilitator’s guide to school improve-
ment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Dufour, R. (1992). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57–61.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., & Eaker, R. E. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington: Solution Tree.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for? Working together for your school.
Toronto, Canada: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2016). Bringing the profession back in: Call to action. Oxford, OH:
Learning Forward. https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/pdf/bringing-the-
profession-back-in.pdf
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organiza-
tions and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates.
New York: Doubleday.
Goodson, I. F. (1983). Subjects for study: Aspects of a social history of curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 15(4).
Goodson, I. F., & Ball, S. J. (1985). Defining the curriculum. New York and Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
620 A. HARGREAVES

Hargreaves, A. (1972). Friendship and Output in the Work Situation, Undergraduate dissertation,
Department of Sociology, University of Sheffield, UK
Hargreaves, A. (1977). Progressivism and Pupil Autonomy. Sociological Review, (August), 585–621.
Hargreaves, A. (1978). The significance of classroom coping strategies. In L. Barton &
R. Meighan (Eds.), Sociological interpretations of schooling and classrooms: A reappraisal.
Driffield: Nafferton Books,(pp 73-100).
Hargreaves, A. (1986). Two cultures of schooling: The case of middle schools. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived Collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In
J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools. New York: Sage,(pp46-72).
Hargreaves, A. (1994a). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. London: Continuum & New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994b). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for educa-
tional change. Journal of Education Policy, 9(1),47-65.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues.
International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503–527.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of
teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(3),
287–309.
Hargreaves, A., Boyle, A., & Harris, A. Uplifting leadership: how organizations Hargreaves, A.,
Boyle, A., & Harris, A. (2014). Teams. CA: Jossey Bass: and communities raise performance.
San Francisco.
Hargreaves, A., & Braun, H. (2012). Leading for all: A research report of the development, design,
implementation and impact of Ontario’s “Essential for Some, Good for All” initiative. Toronto,
Ontario: Council of Ontario Directors of Education.
Hargreaves, A., Crocker, R., Davis, B., McEwen, L., Shirley, D., & Sumara, D. (2009). The learning
mosaic: A multiple perspectives review of the Alberta initiative for school improvement,Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada: Alberta Education
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, T. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality,
collaborative culture and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 2.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: teaching beyond
subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for Change,London: Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and
non-sustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together
means learning for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2017). Collaborative professionalism. Monograph prepared
for the World Innovation Summit for Education. Qatar: Qatar Foundation. www.wise-qatar.
org/2017-wise-research-collaborative-professionalism
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Wangia, S., Bacon, C., & D’Angelo, M. (2018). Leading from the
middle: Spreading learning, well-being, and identity across Ontario. Toronto: Council of
Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) . Retrieved from http://ccsli.ca/downloads/2018-
Leading_From_the_Middle_Final-EN.pdf
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Texas: Southwest Education Development Laboratory.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 621

Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 34.
Lima, J. A. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as
a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97–122.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional
relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school
teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). Education for all. Toronto, ON: Author.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). Collaborative professionalism. Policy/Program memor-
andum No. 159. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/ppm159.pdf
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Strong performers and
successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An
international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris, France: Andy Hargreaves.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). Supporting teacher profes-
sionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. Paris, France: Andy Hargreaves.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Oxford, England:
Harvard Univ. Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. Harlow: Addison-
Wesley Longman Ltd.
Schleicher, A. (2018a). Valuing our teachers and raising their status: How communities can help.
Paris, France: OECD.
Schleicher, A. (2018b). World Class: How to build a 21st century school system. Paris, France: OECD.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Tucker, M. (2019). Leading high-performance school systems: Learning from the world’s best.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press. doi:10.1037/11443-000
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure
for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699–739.