Many of the new network strategies

Many of the new network strategies are being developed by the National College of School Leadership (NCSL). For example, a consultant leaders program now engages 1,000 of the most effective elementary school principals in the country working with 4,000 other schools Thus, in this one strategy alone, 25% of all school principals in the country are involved in mutual learning.
There are a number of obvious benefits from lateral strategies (see also Harg-reaves, 2003). People learn best from peers (fellow travelers who are further down the road) if there is sufficient opportunity for ongoing, purposeful exchange; the system is designed to foster, develop and disseminate innovative practices that work—discoveries, let’s say, in relation to Heifetz’s adaptive challenges (‘‘solutions that lie outside the current way of operating’’); leadership is developed and mobilized in many quarters; motivation and ownership at the local level is deepened—a key ingredient for sustainability of effort and engagement.
Networks, per se, are not a panacea. The downside possibilities potentially include: (a) there may be too many of them adding clutter rather than focus, (b) they may exchange beliefs and opinions more than quality knowledge, and in any case how can quality knowledge be achieved, and (c) networks are usually outside the line-authority, so the question is how potential good ideas get out of the networks so to speak and into focused implementation which requires intensity of effort over time in given settings.
Networks are not ends in themselves but must be assessed in terms of the impact they have on changing the cultures of schools and districts and the state in the direction of the eight elements of sustainability identified in this paper.
It is also important to note that lateral capacity is not the only strategy at work (in particular, the relationship to the other seven elements of sustainability must be highlighted). Complexity theory tells us that if you increase the amount of pur-poseful interaction and infuse it with the checks and balances of quality knowledge, self-organizing patterns (desirable outcomes) will accrue. This promise is not good enough for the sustainable-seeking society with a sense of urgency. There are at least two problems. One concerns how the issues being investigated can result in disci-plined inquiry and innovative results; the other raises the question of how good ideas being generated by networks can be integrated in the line operation of organizations.
New vertical co-dependent relationships
Sustainable societies must solve (hold in dynamic ‘‘tension’’) the perennial change problem of how to get both local ownership (including capacity) and external accountability; and to get this in the entire system. We know that the problems have to be solved locally:
Solutions rely, at least in part, on the users themselves and their capacity to take school responsibility for positive outcomes. In learning, health, work, and even parenting, positive outcomes arise from a combination of personal effort and wider social resources [Bentley & Wilsdon, 2003, p. 20].
The question is what is going to motivate people to seek positive outcomes, and when it comes to the public or corporate good, how are people and groups to be held accountable? The answer is a mixture of collaboration and networks, on the one hand, and what Miliband, former Minister of State for School Standards in Britain calls ‘‘intelligent accountability’’ on the other hand. Networks and other professional learning communities (lateral capacity-building) do build in a strong but not com-plete measure of accountability. As such communities interact around given prob-lems, they generate better practices, shared commitment and accountability to peers.
Collaborative cultures are demanding when it comes to results, and the demand is telling because it is peer-based and up close on a daily basis.
Vertical relationships (state/district, district/school, etc.) must also be strength-ened. One aspect of vertical relationships involves support and resources; the other concerns accountability. Some of these will come in the form of element five (deep learning) and six (short-term and long-term results). It will be difficult to get the balance of accountability right in terms of vertical authority—too much direction demotivates people; too little permits drift or worse.
To address this problem we need to re-introduce a strategy that has been around for at least 20 years, namely, ‘‘self-evaluation.’’ In the past, self-evaluation has been
touted as an alternative to top-down assessment. In fact, we need to conceive self-evaluation and use it as a both/and solution. Miliband (2004) in a recent speech put it this way in advocating:
An accountability framework, which puts a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with more focused external inspection, linked closely to the improvement cycle of the school. [p.