Teacher Collaboration in Times of Uncertainty and Societal Change: The case study of post-Soviet...

25

European Education, vol. 45, no. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 25–49.© 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.comISSN 1056–4934 (print)/ISSN 1944–7086 (online)DOI: 10.2753/EUE1056-4934450102

Benjamin KutsyuruBa

Teacher Collaboration in Times of Uncertainty and Societal Change The Case Study of Post-Soviet Ukraine

The work of teachers is subject to changing not only policies and reforms but also the complexities and contradictions of societal transformations. This paper examines teachers’ perceptions of the impact of post-Soviet transformations on teacher collaboration amid the changing education policies and reforms in Ukraine. Drawing on qualitative methods such as document analysis, focus groups, and individual interviews, this case study reveals that the nature, content, and format of collaboration among teachers in schools are susceptible to transformations at the macro (so-cietal) as well as micro (school) levels. The study points to the ongoing struggle between the forces of modernity and postmodernity and high-lights dilemmas and paradoxes that characterize educational reforms in post-Soviet Ukraine.

The downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent political, economic, and social transformations made a critical impact on Ukraine’s education system. Situated amid a transition from totalitarian Marxist-Leninist ideology to democracy and pluralism, education was one of the

Benjamin Kutsyuruba, Ph.D., is assistant professor in educational policy and leader-ship, and associate director of the Social Program Evaluation Group (SPEG) in the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His research areas include educational policymaking; leadership; mentorship; trust and moral agency; international education; school safety/climate; and educational change. Address for correspondence: [email protected].

26 EUROPEAN EDUCATION

first social spheres to undergo rapid and radical post-Soviet transforma-tion. This process required profound reforms at all structural and cur-ricular levels of the education system. More than two decades later, the transition is still considered incomplete as many political, economic and social developments continue to point to the continuous strife between the forces of progress and pluralism and that of bureaucratic totalitarianism (Kononenko & Holowinsky, 2001). Although some events have moved Ukraine substantially closer to meeting European standards of democracy, the country still needs to develop a stable civil society and further reform its education system (Koshmanova & Ravchyna, 2008).

Significantly, the formal structural aspects of Soviet education have been easier to reform than the everyday practices and institutional cul-tures of postcommunism (Wanner, 1998). One of the main contributing factors to the slow pace of change in education is that many educators and administrators are products of the previous education system and are not familiar with alternative models (Dyczok, 2000); hence, the greater disparity between education policy declarations and actual practical changes (Wolczuk, 2004). Furthermore, teachers’ professional lives have been complicated by the enormous economic, social, and psychological hardships they have faced and the deteriorating status of the teaching profession in the post-Soviet context (De Young, Reeves, & Valyaeva, 2006; Niyozov, 2008; Niyozov & Shamatov, 2010; Silova, 2009; Zajda, 2007).

To make sense of the complexities of post-Soviet transformations in education, this article explores school practices through the eyes of teach-ers, one of the groups most significantly affected by educational reforms. This inquiry was prompted by my past experiences as a schoolteacher in post-Soviet Ukraine amid the increasing reform emphasis on the pedagogy of cooperation and by the call for collaborative relationships and culture in post-Soviet Ukrainian schools (Koshmanova & Ravchyna, 2008; Kutsyuruba, 2009; Oliynik & Danylenko, 2005). Furthermore, a growing body of literature views collaboration as the key practice for the success of system-level educational reforms (Friend & Cook, 2000; Ful-lan, 2010). Drawing on extensive qualitative data covering a period from 1991 to 2005, this article examines elementary and secondary teachers’ experiences in the context of the large-scale philosophical, ideological, social, political, and economic changes of the post-Soviet era and their interpretation of the impact of related changes upon teacher collabora-tion in Ukrainian schools.

SPRING 2013 27

Postmodernity and post-Soviet transition in education: Theoretical framework

Education reforms cannot be understood without making sense of the environment or larger societal contexts in which they operate. While transformations in Ukrainian society closely resemble changes in other East European countries after the collapse of the Soviet regime (Bate-laan & Gundare, 2000; Kubicek, 2002), Kutuev (2005) notes the unique nature of post-Soviet transformations in Ukraine, which zigzag between the revolutions of East European nations and the gradual reforms evident elsewhere. Because political and societal events in post-Soviet countries have overturned the previous political order and values system (Janaszek-Ivanickova, 2006), managing such change has become a generational challenge of tearing apart the old and building the new (Pascual & Pifer, 2002). A need for a new system of values has become evident as the sign-posts of change have radically altered from the direction they indicated at the outset, as the initial euphoria and joy of post-Soviet transformation has been coupled with feelings of uncertainty, instability, anxiety, insecurity, and disorientation (Kononenko & Holowinsky, 2001).

As viewed by observers from various disciplines in post-Soviet Ukraine (Chernetsky, 1994, 2007; Inglehart, 2000; Janaszek-Ivanickova, 2006; Shlapentokh, 1995; Torop, 2001), the search for an alternative system of values and beliefs has involved a gradual transition from the modern Soviet era, characterized by “metanarratives” or ultimate best ways (Lyotard, 1984), to an era characterized in varying degrees by postmodern views or critical ideologies that reject, in whole or in part, attempts to homogenize and explain human nature, society, or the foun-dations of knowledge (Hargreaves, 1994; Sackney, Walker, & Mitchell, 1999). This “postmodern” era is believed to have started during the social and cultural openness of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (open-ness), where “Soviet postmodernism” manifested itself through an out-right crumbling of an empire’s “metanarrative”—that of building Soviet communism (Chernetsky, 1994, 2007). Ukrainian society still seems to experience struggles between the forces of modernity and postmodernity at the political, social, and economic levels (Syumar, 2010).1

Post-totalitarian developments led to a collapse of the educational thinking and practice in the countries of the former Soviet bloc and to a reorienting of the established education systems toward predominantly Western European perspectives (Godon, Juceviciene, & Kodelja, 2004).


Similarly, the vector of changes in the Ukrainian system of education focused on the “transition from the ‘Soviet school’ model to the demo-cratic European one” (Ministry of Education of Ukraine, 1999, p. 3). The existing education system, characterized by uniform requirements, centralized planning and administration, and authoritarian pedagogy, noticeably gave way to the elements of decentralization and the pedagogy of cooperation. In an attempt to capitalize on the potential of education to articulate and instill new norms of social and cultural behavior in the newly established country, educational reforms followed economic, po-litical, and cultural transformations and challenged the status quo of the newly emerging national identity with diverse philosophies, religions, economic theories, and pedagogical ideas (Wanner, 1998).

As a result, the government reformed the educational infrastructure and revised curricula at all levels, thus introducing new private and elite secondary schools (lyceums, gymnasia, and alternative schools), courses, programs and projects, models and techniques of teaching and learning, and information technologies (Koshmanova & Ravchyna, 2008). Schools seemed to have been caught on the cusp of a new era, “one between a modernist paradigm (characterized by professional values such as re-sponsibility, mediative role, and concern for bottom-line results) and the postmodern pattern (with swift currents of institutional changes marked by decentralization, pluralistic demands from multiple voices, and school system redesign)” (Maxcy, 1994, p. 3). The question, then, is whether practices in education in Ukraine have remained intractably modernist in the midst of increasingly postmodern changes.

Teacher collaboration in (post)modernity

It is widely recognized that one of the core requisites of postmodern societies is the ability to collaborate on both a large (society) and small (school) scale (Fullan, 1993). Collaboration has become a cornerstone of schools as postmodern organizations, serving as a basis for decision making and problem solving, as well as being an explicitly articulated integrating principle of action, planning, culture, development, or-ganization, and research in schools (Hargreaves, 1994; Sackney & Mitchell, 2002). Therefore, recent reform efforts in education have emphasized increasing teacher collaboration (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996), whereas some scholars have gone so far as to suggest

SPRING 2013 29

that collaboration is an educational reform imperative (Morse, 2000).Teacher collaboration and collegiality have been presented as having

many virtues and as a critical component when undertaking any changes within schools (Elbot & Fulton, 2008; Little, 2002). Many studies have reported the positive outcomes of collaboration for teachers, including improving efficacy (Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997), enabling professional growth (Lieberman & Miller, 1984), fostering positive attitudes toward teaching (Brownell et al., 1997) and higher levels of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2001), engendering school improvement and school effective-ness (Meadows & Saltzman, 2002), securing effective implementation of externally introduced change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991), and establishing a positive school culture and impact on student achievement (MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). Successful collaboration is viewed as a function of urgency–agency–energy, in which urgency is the need to make a difference, agency is collaboration that focuses on inquiry and coherence, and energy is the ability to achieve desired outcomes (Earl & Lee, 1998).

Despite the promises and benefits of collaboration, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Most critiques of collaboration and col-legiality have focused on difficulties of implementation, in particular, on the difficulty for teachers to find time to work together and on the unfamiliarity that teachers have with the collegial role (Hargreaves, 1991). Others have identified time management, teacher efficacy constraints, fragmented vision, team competitiveness, and conflict management as barriers to implementing collaborative practices (Leonard & Leonard, 2001). Furthermore, the physical structure of schools, which has been designed for the isolation of teachers, may have significant drawbacks for creating collaborative schools (Friend & Cook, 2000).

As collaboration may potentially increase the complexity of organiz-ing and managing the teacher’s role, a single lens, framework, or dis-ciplinary approach is an inadequate aid to understanding such complex organizational phenomena (Pounder, 1998). Hence, this study examines collaboration through two theoretical lenses: organizational culture and micropolitics.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture in schools consists of historically transmitted pat-terns of meaning, learned through solving problems of external adapta-


tion and internal integration, and expressed explicitly, through symbols, unwritten rules, traditions, norms, and expectations, and implicitly, through taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions that give meaning to people’s actions and shape their interpretations of the world (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Deal & Peterson, 2009; Kruse & Louis, 2009; Schein, 2010; Stolp & Smith, 1995). Schein (2010) distinguishes between three basic levels of the organizational culture: artifacts (observable manifestations), espoused values (statements and beliefs about the way things are done in an organization and how people are supposed to behave), and basic underlying assumptions (taken-for-granted guidelines for actions that provide continuity and stability in rapidly changing situations).

The culture metaphor is important for the postmodern perspective, as order or consensus in a postmodern organizations is created through institutional dialogue defined by the use of influence rather than power (Clegg, 1990) and relying more on building relationships, meanings, and connections than on structures and rules (Sackney et al., 1999). The world of flexibility with no clear center or location of power requires a collaborative culture to hold together the decentralized parts, thus stress-ing otherness, difference, and diversity in schools (Firestone & Louis, 1999; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Strahan, 2003).

Micropolitics

Micropolitics of education is concerned with the interactions and po-litical ideologies of the social systems of administrators, teachers, and students within school buildings (Iannaccone, 1975). A key concern of this perspective is how some individuals and groups use sanctioned and nonsanctioned, overt and covert strategies, and cooperative and conflic-tive actions, to realize their values at the expense of others, or have the power and influence to shape other’s values in the image of their own (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993; Ball, 1987; Blase, 2005; Hoyle, 1986; Mawhinney, 1999; Townsend, 1990). Micropolitics provides a critical lens on the widely advocated virtues of collegiality at the classroom level, where there are substantial differences in values and beliefs among the teachers involved, and it raises questions about treating norms of col-legiality as if they were administrative laws (Hargreaves, 1991). It also allows discriminating between the different forms of collaboration and collegiality and examining the nature of those forms and whose interests they serve.

SPRING 2013 31

Cultures vary considerably from school to school because of different sets of external and internal issues that shape school environments and define behaviors within schools. Taken together, organizational culture and micropolitics allow differentiating between noncollaborative, pseudocollaborative (contrived collegiality, comfortable collaboration, and balkanization), and collaborative cultures (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). This approach allows examination of whether collaboration func-tions as a device to help teachers work together to pursue and review their own purposes as a professional community, or as a means to re-inscribe administrative control within persuasive and pervasive discourses of cooperation and partnership.

Data collection and analysis method

This study draws on qualitative methods of inquiry, such as document analysis, focus groups, and individual interviews. The data collection was conducted in September–October, 2005. The first research phase involved a systematic procedure for reviewing and evaluating documents and policies at governmental and administrative levels (Bowen, 2009; Prior, 2003). Policies and procedures issued during the period of 1991–2005 by the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) of Ukraine and by regional and municipal Departments of Education and Science in Cher-nivtsi were reviewed and analyzed in order to examine the documented influence of the societal changes on schools.

The second research phase involved eight focus groups and fifteen semistructured individual interviews, together comprising a total of fifty-five elementary and secondary school teachers from eight school sites in the city of Chernivtsi, Ukraine. The purposeful selection of the sites aimed at including schools of various types, sizes, and languages of instruction; the sample included two elite schools (a lyceum and a gymnasia school), four general secondary schools (two medium-sized and two large schools), and two general secondary schools for national minorities (for details on the school types, see Chernivtsi on the Net, 2011). All participants were in the teaching profession within the edu-cation system of Ukraine during the period of time from 1991 to 2005. While mostly experienced educators were involved, one focus group was held with the younger teachers.

The fact that all participants were from one city in the southwestern part of Ukraine of course limits the study’s findings as attributive to that


specific region. However, this design also allows for a collective case-study approach to data analysis (Yin, 2009), thus going beyond personal perceptions and letting the voices speak to larger issues of post-Soviet change, transformation in societal values, and the impact of educational reforms on teacher practices. Furthermore, in line with the transitologi-cal call for exploring moments of educational metamorphosis (Cowen, 2000; Silova, 2010) and seeking to make distinctions between generic and unique factors in pre- and postcommunist contexts (Tõkés, 2000), this study examines the effects of specific practices, institutions, and actors in their complex social and institutional settings and geographies.

Post-Soviet societal changes and teacher collaboration: Research findings

Three themes emerged from the discussions of changes to teacher col-laboration that have and continue to take place during the post-Soviet transition: (a) the facets of teacher collaboration (professional and per-sonal), (b) the perceived influence of post-Soviet societal changes, and (c) various transformations in the nature, content, and format of teacher collaboration.

Facets of teacher collaboration

Collaboration among teachers was viewed as an integral part of joint work among all stakeholders with the unifying cause of educating new generations: “We have one goal: to educate a person. Only if we work cohesively can we reach this goal,” stated Sasha. The nature of teacher collaboration was described through participants’ perspectives on both professional and personal instances of joint work. Professional collabo-ration in participants’ schools occurred in the following forms: com-mon planning of activities; common sharing of instructional materials; interdisciplinary integration; cooperation among subject and homeroom teachers; classroom visitations and observations; mentoring; and external collaboration with teachers from other schools in the city. Of particular interest were methodological associations [metodob’yednannya] (a col-lective of teachers of a specific subject that meets to discuss professional issues, review programs, plan curricula, schedule mutual class visitations, implement new policies and regulations, mentor novice teachers, etc.) and pedagogical councils [pedrada] (a continuing collegial administrative

SPRING 2013 33

body, consisting of all teachers and headed by the principal, that deals with issues directly related to the organization and improvement of edu-cation and meets no fewer than four times a year) (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2000). All teachers viewed these activities as a formal part of school collaboration.

Personal, or informal collaboration, on the other hand, related to everyday situations in schools that involved a warm, familylike atmo-sphere, mutual material and financial help in dire straits, friendly advice, emotional support in unfortunate personal circumstances, encourage-ment, and celebrations of holidays, to name a few. Although participants distinguished between professional and personal collaboration, most of them believed that both of these aspects were interdependent and closely interwoven, and that successful professional collaboration was not pos-sible without personal collaboration.

The perceived influence of post-Soviet societal changes

Teachers’ opinions about the influence of post-Soviet societal changes on teacher collaboration ranged from “insignificant” to “very significant.” The comments of a small number of participants who believed there was little societal impact on teacher collaboration mainly related to the per-sonal side of collective work and to relationships among teachers. They argued that aspects of collaboration such as mutual help and support are independent of society and that teachers continue to work together the way they had worked before:

Our work is joint in nature. I am well acquainted with instructional meth-odologies of other countries, and I can tell that every teacher works for herself there. Makarenko’s principles of [working as a] collective used to guide and still guide our work. We are so close that we know every little detail about each other, even about each other’s salary—which is unheard of anywhere in the world. (Lina)

The majority of participants, however, indicated (both directly and indirectly) that post-Soviet changes had a significant effect on the nature of teacher collaboration, because, as Lyuba put it, “one cannot live in society and be outside of society.” Most teachers argued that the nature, content, and format of their joint work with colleagues have undergone “very significant” transformations. Collaboration in the Soviet era meant that teachers had to participate in all school activities and “go all out in


school,” setting aside everything else as secondary. Moreover, collec-tive work required conformity and a unified perspective; therefore, as Antonina framed it, “it often looked like every member of the collective had the same views.” At that time, the essence of school collaborative activities appeared to be politically and ideologically laden.

The impact of societal change and subsequent transformations in collaboration

The differences in how teachers collaborated in the Soviet era and in independent Ukraine could be seen as both the direct and indirect result of the influences of societal change on schools in general, and teachers in particular.

Changes in collaborative initiatives. First of all, teachers described new tasks and requirements assigned to their school by national and local educational authorities that differed in focus, approach, and structure from those set by the Communist Party: “At that time [the Soviet period], we were fulfilling different tasks assigned to our collective and tried to help each other. That time passed; now, there are other tasks. Again, we are carrying them out with the same staff; we are trying to help each other solve the problems that are set by the government” (Nina). The most evident impact noticed was the depoliticization and deideologization of staff meetings; participants reminisced that pedagogical council meetings in the Soviet times had always started with discussion of the goals set by the Communist Party. Furthermore, a few respondents emphasized a significant decrease in the number of teacher assemblies of any kind in comparison to the Soviet times.

Respondents indicated that unlike the obligatory participation in school activities exercised in the Soviet times, participation in col-laborative activities during the post-Soviet era became more voluntary. Several teachers tied the absence of ideological pressure and newfound emphasis on voluntary self-direction to a greater eagerness to participate in collaboration:

Nowadays, teachers want to get involved and volunteer to participate because issues discussed at [staff] meetings are usually very topical and urgent to us as teachers. Teachers can bring in a motion for discussion of different issues, ranging from instruction to general life in school, youth development, student leisure, neighborhood and community issues and activities, etc. (Antonina)

SPRING 2013 35

In a number of schools, teachers indicated that, unlike before, greater participation from teachers was encouraged and promoted by the school administration. However, it was not based on the use of administrative force: “If someone doesn’t want to do something that is not included in the list of professional responsibilities, such as being part of the collective or participating in different activities, that person can always refuse, and it will not affect relationships with others” (Arkadiy).

Collaborative activities became characterized by a more open expres-sion of individual opinions in the school collective, which was viewed as a direct outcome of the freedom of speech in society. Arguments, differences of opinion, and conflicts were seen as having both positive and negative connotations, this determination largely depending on the eventual outcomes of the joint work. Freedom of expression in collabora-tive interactions became highly valued if it was of constructive nature and capable of invoking change and preventing school culture from remain-ing in a stagnant state. “Truth is born in the argument” was a common belief among teachers who outlined three conditions necessary for any point to be accepted into consideration in the process of collaboration: it needs to be valid and worthy of notice; it needs to adhere to the shared norms in the collective; and, it needs to be of some potential benefit for the school. Most importantly, some participants mentioned that whenever arguments or conflicts occurred, the common goal of teaching students came up as a mediating factor that forced them to realize what was worth fighting for.

Along with freedom of expression, the participants experienced freedom to create instructional innovations. Specifically, the develop-ment of professional collaboration in the school occurred through inter-disciplinary integration, wherein teachers were involved in organizing interdisciplinary lessons. The new format of collaborative activities for teachers was especially obvious in the schools of the “new type,” such as lyceum and gymnasia. Because there was no initial regulatory set of policies that clearly outlined and prescribed school activities, such schools had possibilities to experiment with pedagogical work and do something new and original based on the principles of creativity and self-actualization—something not connected with former Soviet command-type pedagogy. The format of collaboration in these schools sought to emphasize “[teacher] relationships with the room for creativity, freedom of action, the right to make mistakes in pedagogical experiments, and freedom to make innovations” (Arkadiy). These factors stimulated


interest among teachers toward working in elite schools due to the em-phases on self-actualization and ability to carry out not only mechanical instruction, but also creative and experimental work. However, as was mentioned by participants and evident through document analysis, this freedom was gradually leveled off with the introduction of legislation in the mid-1990s creating a uniform system and set of strict policies for all schools, including elite schools.

Administrative control, financial instability, and divisions among teachers. After the initial period of democratization (1991–96), when schools were encouraged to work creatively and collaboratively, many teachers felt that the old Soviet authoritarian mentality gradually tried to “grip them in its vice again” through “mandating” and through the increased bureaucratic control of the planning process and organiza-tion of staff meetings, the actions of in-school administration, and the policies of national and municipal authorities in education. Teachers indicated that time for collaboration became insufficient due to increased paperwork and requirements to account for all aspects of schoolwork: “A teacher’s job changed from creative work to paper-mania. A teacher needs to fill out so many different papers that he doesn’t have time for creativity” (Zinaida). Some focus group participants assumed that this phenomenon was connected with the return to power of people who used to work in Soviet times, who had wanted to rule again and establish the same “Soviet school” working procedures in the education system of independent Ukraine.

Interestingly enough, the tenuous material welfare of teachers, and how this financial instability strained and affected their interrelation-ships, was also deemed as something that negatively affected teacher collaboration. An exchange between Larysa (L) and Antonina (A) vividly illustrates the point:

L: Different social and material reasons influence collaboration as well. They do . . . influence it greatly.

A: Yes, we want to talk to others, learn more, watch something, observe others, but then we get a subconscious thought, “Why am I sitting here, there is no money in the house, I need to get out of a scrape” and you look for extra ways to earn that money.

Others confirmed that schoolteachers were more preoccupied with survival than their professional duties. Iryna noted: “The fact is that often a teacher has more than one job. Therefore, teaching is like a hobby

SPRING 2013 37

for many people, while almost all of them have another job on the side. One needs to have a side job in order to survive.” Iryna also used to participate in an interschool teacher group, but due to the fact that many teachers worked two or three jobs, the group fell apart and collaboration between schools ceased.

Most respondents perceived material and financial instability to have been instrumental in transforming the nature of relationships among teachers. Participants observed that relationships used to be closer and kinder; communication between colleagues was much better before: “Now everything is done in a businesslike manner: gainful and remu-nerative relationships became more popular and people started respect-ing only those people who are beneficial to know. Relationships among people that were based on respect, knowledge and high moral qualities become worse every day” (Iryna). Review of teacher responses revealed that despite the fact that teacher relationships were primarily guided by common human values (e.g., respect, kindness, love, patience, help, compassion, and tolerance), there was a decline in this system of values and beliefs in their work and a shift from friendly or personal interaction toward material priorities. Furthermore, participants believed that dis-united and alienated relationships led to isolation, both in society and in schools. “Unfortunately we started ‘hiding in the corners,’ we rarely see each other—only at pedagogical council or staff meetings; that’s it. It is impossible to meet in an informal atmosphere around the table and share our troubles or joys. . . . the conditions of life have affected us so much that we have become embittered and resentful,” Lyubomyra shared.

Subsequently, the decline in material welfare and change in their relationships caused division among teachers and negatively affected their joint work: “We used to get together in our Assembly Hall, but then something changed—either we became older or something changed in our pockets—and we started getting together in groups, big or small” (Lyuda). In a shift from the mentality of uniformity and homogeneity, teachers noted that groups or coalitions started to form based on affili-ation with specific organizational divisions, as well as personal factors, such as similar interests or social status. Arkadiy noted:

When we just started working in this school, there was nothing like that; the whole collective used to be like one family. Gradually, those material and moral problems started pushing teachers toward the establishment of the micro-groups in the collective, based on common economic or social status, to influence communication among teachers.


Some respondents noted that teachers started “cliquing” and working with colleagues who could be of benefit to them: “It’s not one collective anymore; it’s made up of cliques” (Rimma). Despite the prevalent nega-tive perceptions of coalitions as “undercurrents and cliques,” a significant number of participants viewed them as formal or informal groupings formed in an endeavor to bring about change to the schooling process.

Divisiveness was also reported in collaboration between younger and older generations of teachers. In the older teachers’ views, the younger generation of pedagogues came to school with significantly different val-ues, worldviews, and, in most cases, different attitudes toward work and their colleagues. “They want to finish their lessons faster and go home” or “They don’t know what it means to devote their personal time after classes to the public,” were some of the most common responses about the work of younger colleagues. On the other hand, younger teachers argued that collaboration suffered because older teachers were unwill-ing to change their instructional approaches (as required by new trends in education). Also evident was the interplay between collectivistic and individualistic values between generations: “The older teachers are more prone to being involved in the collective, but the young ones are not drawn toward the collective anymore” (Lyuba). However, some representatives of the older generation confirmed that when there was an urgent need, the younger teachers worked closely together. Some suggested that with technological developments, younger teachers may have less need for mentoring as they are able to draw necessary information from a variety of sources. A more significant reason for limited cooperation between generations of teachers, voiced by a few participants, was that younger teachers did not pay much attention to the collective because of time and commitment issues: many of them worked at several jobs in order to “get out of a scrape” and survive in difficult economic conditions.

From collectivism to individualism. An overarching theme across various discussions was the gradual disappearing of collectivism and increasing emphasis on individualism in schools. This shift was evident in the lack of collective support in problem solving:

[During Soviet times] people got together and discussed different ques-tions in pedagogical councils . . . for example, students’ behavior was discussed collectively by teachers . . . as distinct from one teacher racking his brains over how to deal with certain students now. . . . These problems exist everywhere and each teacher solves them alone. There is no longer such a notion as a collective. (Rimma)

SPRING 2013 39

The decline of collectivistic values was coupled with increased em-phasis on individualistic views. Instrumental in this seemed to be the MoES’s emphasis on the “Individuality-Oriented Approach,” which entailed individual approaches to teaching and the professional develop-ment of teachers (Kolotylo, 2005). Document analysis reveals the prior-ity for curricular innovations became the “humanization” of education, emphasizing common human values and the person’s individuality. The successful realization of this goal depended on the teacher: “individuality-oriented approach to education starts with the individuality of a teacher. . . . In other words, individually-oriented education is a change in the viewpoint of a teacher” (Department of Education and Science of Cher-nivtsi Regional State Administration, 2003, p. 24). However, participants perceived that extreme emphasis on either collectivism or individualism was not desirable for effective teacher collaboration: “only through com-mon efforts and consideration of individual interests something can be achieved; therefore, [a balance for] teacher collaboration is necessary and imperative” (Volodymyr).

The nature of collaboration in the context of drastic change: Discussion

Amid the uncertainties of a transitional period in Ukraine’s society and educational system, teachers believed that both professional and personal aspects of working together in the school collective helped them deal with the outcomes of drastic change. Moreover, the personal aspects of collaboration have become antecedents of professional collaboration, providing teachers with the foundation or grounds for effective joint work. Hence, these findings suggest that in times of uncertainty and change, perhaps, the personal facet of collaboration has more importance for teachers than the professional one. However, it is the nature, content, and format of the professional facet that usually undergo the most significant transformations.

The highly collective and homogenous cultures of Soviet schools were conducive to a “gray mass” or groupthink approach, characterized by the uncritical conformity to group decisions, the unthinking acceptance of the collective solution, and the suppression of individual dissent (Janis, 1972). As the Soviet educational system expected individuals to develop a collective, rather than a personal identity (Mal’kova, 1988), the principles of the collective (Makarenko, 1967) still guided the work


of teachers who were brought up with Soviet values and beliefs. The goals of post-Soviet education reform seemed to detach teacher col-laboration from its former political or ideological bases and orient it toward the new guiding principles of education: nationality, morality, and individuality (Ministry of Education of Ukraine, 1992). However, no broad-range, formal system was established that would encourage teachers to collaborate, share experiences, and thereby increase their level of professional growth.

The weak educational policy base of the newly established country and initial freedom for instructional innovations spurred new collaborative activities based on the principles of creativity and self-actualization—notions that were not usually associated with the former Soviet com-mand-type pedagogy. Increased openness, freedom of expression, and acceptance of different individual opinions in society were conducive to an increased voluntary participation in teacher-oriented school activities (which is considered to be a characteristic of effective collaboration) (Friend & Cook, 2000). Although many of the collaborative activities in the schools were “inherited” from the Soviet school system, some of them differed substantially in many components. For example, the function of the methodological associations (metodob’yednannya) very closely resembled the notion of a professional learning community (Du-Four & Eaker, 1998), with teachers questioning the status quo, seeking new methods, testing those methods, and then reflecting on the results. These associations served to establish interdisciplinary integration and cooperation between teachers through sharing, planning, and professional development. However, the subsequent tightening of educational poli-cies and state control over schools resulted in bureaucratic pressure and authoritarianism in the organization of some activities, which teachers termed “mandated” or “prescribed” collaboration. Furthermore, due to excessive paperwork and unreasonable accountability to various levels of administration, time for collaboration became insufficient.

Many studies identified inadequate teacher salaries as one of the strongest factors undermining the status and prestige of the teaching profession in post-Soviet countries (De Young et al., 2006; Niyozov & Shamatov, 2010; Silova, 2009). The findings of this study further sug-gest that the financial instability and dire material conditions of teachers also significantly undermine the effectiveness of teacher collaboration. Because many teachers were more preoccupied with survival and provid-ing for their families by working multiple jobs than with their profes-

SPRING 2013 41

sional duties, their commitment to and capacity for collaboration were limited. Even if teachers had the agency and willingness to collaborate, they often lacked energy to accomplish tasks. Moreover, the increased socioeconomic differentiation in society either led to isolation among teachers or to increased division and the formation of cliques in the col-lective based on common economic and social status. Left unaddressed, declining material conditions, limited financial resources, the decline in teachers’ status, tightening state control over schools, and changing individual and collective teacher identities inevitably lead to declining enthusiasm and morale among teachers (Silova, 2009).

Organizational cultures and micropolitics in post-Soviet schools

Concerned with examining factors that help give meaning, support, and identity to teachers, their work, and relationships with colleagues, this study did not provide an opportunity to examine the culture of each of the participating schools in depth. However, teacher responses and observa-tions allowed for a general discussion of explicit and implicit components of school culture (Schein, 2010) that significantly influenced the ways in which teachers collaborated in their schools. While some explicit cultural artifacts (e.g., traditional ways to collaborate in pedagogical councils, methodological associations, etc.) had been established in schools in the Soviet times, others were introduced, either by administration or teachers, after the collapse of the USSR. In both cases, these manifestations served an ultimate purpose of bringing teachers together through common plan-ning, organization, and participation. The analysis of espoused values, or statements and beliefs about the way things are done in school and how people are supposed to behave, revealed a decline in the societal system of values and beliefs and a shift toward individual values and material priorities in their work. This shift often negatively affected relationships and, subsequently, collaboration among teachers.

The implicit nature of school culture, or an invisible flow of taken-for-granted assumptions that give meaning to people’s actions and shape their interpretations, was strongly observed in teachers’ expressed sense of belonging to a school collective. Despite the recent developments in education and increased emphasis on individualism, a historically trans-mitted collective spirit appeared to still be powerful due to its dominance in school cultures for more than seventy years. It became the underlying


social meaning, and it continued to shape teachers’ views on their work, their behavior in schools, and relationships with colleagues. This may be the key reason for struggles in collaboration between older and younger generation of teachers.

Micropolitical processes and structures tend to intensify during pe-riods of change in schools (Blase, 2005). The micropolitical activity in participating schools increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union due to socioeconomic differentiation that led to increased divisiveness in the collective, and because of philosophical transformations like freedom of speech and conscience that led to the acceptance of multiple perspectives in schools. Despite some negative perceptions of coalitions and cliques, these formal or informal groupings were viewed favorably for their endeavor and potential to bring about change. Arguments, dif-ferences of opinion, and conflicts were valued if they were constructive in nature and capable of invoking change and preventing school culture from remaining in its stagnant state. Therefore, the micropolitical strat-egy of collaboration, along with the micropolitical strategy of conflict (Townsend, 1990), may generate in teachers a sense of shared account-ability for the outcomes of their decision making.

Viewing collaboration through both cultural and micropolitical lenses allowed for discrimination between different types of school culture. Some of the responses highlighted characteristics of noncollaborative cultures in schools, noting individualism and isolation, conservatism in educational approaches and unwillingness to change, and presentism, or focusing on immediate, rather than long-term issues in schools (Lortie, 1975). Increased administrative control and intensification of paperwork resulted in the unwillingness or inability (due to stress, exhaustion, and burnout) of some teachers to be involved in collaboration with their col-leagues. Little (2002) believed that schools often intensify the isolation of teachers by the way they organize time, space, and responsibilities.

The majority of participants’ responses resonated with the character-istics of pseudocollaborative cultures, which seem collegial in context, but lack collaborative substance (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). First, the increased division among teachers in all participating schools after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the creation of groups (or cliques) accord-ing to common interests and affiliations with certain structures within schools, and coalitions competing for influence in teacher collectives, are all characteristic of the culture of balkanization. Tensions in the joint

SPRING 2013 43

work of teachers emerged as they started communicating and working with those colleagues who were perceived to be closer in spirit, age and experience, and socioeconomic status. Second, respondents described the presence of cultures of comfortable collaboration in several schools. This was particularly visible through unsystematic or random collaboration that occurred only when there was an urgent need to get things done. Also evident were traits of contrived collegiality, characterized by a set of formal, specific, bureaucratic procedures designed to increase the attention being given to joint teacher planning, consultation, and other collaboration activities. This process was double-edged, garnering posi-tive and negative comments from the respondents. On one hand, teachers voluntarily participated in collaborative activities as they have become more engaged and development-oriented; on the other hand, concerns were raised about the “prescribed” nature of and authoritarianism in the organization of some of activities.

Finally, some teachers’ responses demonstrated the presence of char-acteristics of collaborative cultures in their schools. Some comments described support networks of professionals who shared problems, ideas, materials, and solutions. This was especially noticeable in, but not limited to, the schools of a new type, where teachers’ work was characterized by creativity, innovation, flexibility, self-actualization, and lifelong learning.

Dealing with postmodern dilemmas and paradoxes: Conclusions and implications

Positioned amid the changing realities of society in general and in the sys-tem of education in particular, the nature of teacher collaboration seems to be characterized by various tensions, dilemmas, and paradoxes: (a) the paradox of freedoms and constraints, of flexibility and rigid bureaucracy in teachers’ work; (b) the dilemma of increasing demand for professional commitment amid the decline of material welfare and deterioration of working conditions; (c) the tension between emerging individualism and engrained collectivism; and, (d) the increased division among teachers. The presence of these dilemmas and paradoxes sheds light on the ongoing strife between the forces of modernity and postmodernity and ways in which schools and school practices have remained intractably modernist in the midst of an increasingly postmodern world, ultimately affecting


the implementation and pace of reforms in education. Despite the fact that certain educational aspects successfully transformed according to the postmodern realities of the new era, enabling development of the system, other components remained true to the modern Soviet school system and were detrimental for further transformations.

As one of the core requisites of postmodern societies and organizations, collaboration was found to be present in different forms and shapes in schools. A focus on understanding the essence of collaboration in times of uncertainty, instability, loss of hope, and devaluation of status reveals that personal aspects of collaboration tend to gain more significance than professional ones, and thus serve as antecedents for the development of professional collaboration. If teachers’ material and social needs are not met, the professional side of their collaboration with colleagues tends to suffer; conversely, when teachers feel financially, materially, and so-cially secure, their work orients toward professionalism and professional development. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the role of teachers’ lives outside of school in the process of establishing collabora-tive relationships within schools.

Several implications for policy and practice arise from this study. As participants noted, extreme emphasis on either collectivism or individual-ism may lead to isolation and privatism on one side or groupthink and uniformity on the other; therefore, discourse on collaboration requires a balance between both perspectives in order to engage teachers across generations and groupings in schools. Reconceptualizing the use of a collective (not as a tool, but as a condition of education (Krasovetsky, 1995) may serve this need well by bridging the work of past and future generations of teachers. Despite the educational policy focus on pedagogy of cooperation, school practices lacked a common framework or system of collaboration. Not mandated, but developed in consultation with teach-ers, such a framework may substitute the random nature of collaborative work among teachers with a systematic collegiality by uncovering the fullness of teachers’ potential through constant and consistent involve-ment in collaborative inquiry with colleagues. Finally, despite struggles, dilemmas, and paradoxes in a world of postmodern collapse of belief, a world without solid truth, standards, or ideals, a world devoid of social cohesiveness, educators could become the beacons of hope (Walker, 2006) for future generations of leaders in society by promoting and engaging in collaborative school cultures.

SPRING 2013 45

Note

1. It is beyond the scope of this article to further explicate the axiological, epistemological, and ontological presuppositions and debates on postmodernism as construct, nor will this article delve into specific characteristics of modernity and postmodernity, as this has been done in earlier works (Kutsyuruba, 2011a, 2011b).

References

Bacharach, S. B., & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 423–452.

Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.

Batelaan, P., & Gundare, I. (2000). Intercultural education, co-operative learning and the changing society. Intercultural Education, 11 (Supplement), S31–S34.

Blase, J. (2005). The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 264–277). New York: Springer.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Quali-tative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M. S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers work-ing together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 340–359.

Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2000). “On secondary educational institutions.” Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, No. 964. Kyiv, Ukraine: Author.

Chernetsky, V. (1994). Late Soviet culture: A parallax for postmodernism [Review of the book Late Soviet Culture]. Postmodern Culture, 4(3), 34–47.

———. (2007). Mapping postcommunist cultures: Russia and Ukraine in the context of globalization. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Chernivtsi on the Net. (2011). Educational institutions. www.city.cv.ua/Ukrainian/ScienceEducation/School.shtml.

Clegg, S. R. (1990). Modern organizations: Organization studies in the postmodern world. London: Sage.

Cowen, R. (2000). Comparing futures or comparing pasts? Comparative Educa-tion, 36(3), 333–342.

De Young, A., Reeves, M., & Valyaeva, G. (2006). Surviving the transition? Case studies of schools and schooling in the Kyrgyz Republic since independence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradox-es, and promises (2d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Department of Education and Science of Chernivtsi Regional State Administra-


tion. (2003). Methodological recommendations for organization of education-al process in general secondary schools in 2003/2004 school year. Chernivtsi, Ukraine: Chernivtsi Regional Institute of Post-Diploma Pedagogical Education.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Dyczok, M. (2000). Ukraine: Movement without change, change without move-ment. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic.

Earl, L., & Lee, L. (1998). School improvement: What have we learned from the Manitoba experience. Toronto, ON: Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation.

Elbot, C., & Fulton, D. (2008). Building an intentional school culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Firestone, W. A., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2d ed., pp. 297–322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school pro-fessionals (3d ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

———. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Fullan, M. G., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.

Godon, R., Juceviciene, P., & Kodelja, Z. (2004). Philosophy of education in post-Soviet societies of Eastern Europe: Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia. Comparative Education, 40(4), 559–569.

Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher col-laboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 46–72). London: Sage.

———. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoyle, E. (1986). The politics of school management. London: Hodder.Iannaccone, L. (1975). Educational policy systems. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova

University Press.Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington

Quarterly, 23(1), 215–228. Janaszek-Ivanickova, H. (2006). Slavic literatures in the chaos of postmodern

changes. Neohelicon, 33(2), 9–35. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Kolotylo, M. I. (2005). Introduction of individually-oriented technologies in edu-

cational process as the necessary condition for professional growth of teachers and development of students’ capacities. Regional Education (Newspaper of the Department of Education and Science of Chernivtsi Region State Admin-istration), 26 August, 4.

Kononenko, P. P., & Holowinsky, I. Z. (2001). Educational reform and language issue in Ukraine. In N. K. Shimahara, I. Z. Holowinsky, & S. Tomlinson-

SPRING 2013 47

Clarke (Eds.), Ethnicity, race, and nationality in education (pp. 213–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koshmanova, T., & Ravchyna, T. (2008). Teacher preparation in a post-totalitarian society: An interpretation of Ukrainian teacher educators’ stereotypes. Inter-national Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(2), 137–158.

Krasovetsky, H. (1995). The problems of child collective in the context of school humanization. Ridna Shkola, 2(3), 8–15.

Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kubicek, P. (2002). Civil society, trade unions and post-Soviet democratization: Evidence from Russia and Ukraine. Europe–Asia Studies, 54(4), 603–624.

Kutsyuruba, B. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Guiding beginning teachers with instructional supervision and professional development. International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 257–277.

———. (2011a). Education in the period of post-Soviet transition in Ukraine. Demokratizatsiya: Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 19(3), 287–309.

———. (2011b). Potential for teacher collaboration in post-Soviet Ukraine. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 541–551.

Kutuev, P. (2005). Genealogy of the ideology of development in post-Leninist Ukraine. International Journal of Sociology, 35(2), 9–24.

Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (2001). Assessing aspects of professional col-laboration in schools: Beliefs versus practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 4–23.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, their world and their work: Impli-cations for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Little, J. W. (2002). Professional communication and collaboration. In W. D. Hawley & D. L. Rollie (Eds.), The keys to effective schools (pp. 43–55). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Louis, K. S., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. D. (1996). Teachers’ professional community

in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–798. Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (trans.

G. Bennington & B. Massumi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture

and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 73–84.

Makarenko, A. S. (1967). The collective family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Mal’kova, Z. A. (1988). Education in the country of socialism. Soviet Education,

49, 1557–1564. Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Reappraisal: the problems and prospects of studying

the micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 155–170.

Maxcy, S. (Ed.). (1994). Postmodern schools leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger.Meadows, B. J., & Saltzman, M. (2002). Shared decision-making: An uneasy col-

laboration. Principal, 81(4), 41–48. Ministry of Education of Ukraine (1992). Ukraina XXI stolittya: Derzhavna

Natsional’na Prohrama ‘OSVITA’ [Ukraine of the twenty-first century: The state national program of education]. Kyiv: Ministry of Education.


——— (1999). Education for All 2000 assessment. Kyiv: Institute of Content and Methods of Education.

Morse, W. C. (2000). Foreword. In M. Friend & L. Cook (Eds.), Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (3d ed., pp. xi–xii). New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Niyozov, S. (2008). Understanding teaching beyond content and method. Euro-pean Education: Issues and Studies, 40(4), 46–69.

Niyozov, S., & Shamatov, D. (2010). Teachers surviving to teach: Implications for post-Soviet education and society in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education policy reforms (Vol. 11). Dor-drecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Oliynik, V., & Danylenko, L. (Eds.). (2005). In-service teacher training in Ukraine: Contemporaneousness and perspectives for development. Kyiv: Ukraine Millennium.

Pascual, C., & Pifer, S. (2002). Ukraine’s bid for a decisive place in history. The Washington Quarterly, 25(1), 175–192.

Pounder, D. G. (1998). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sackney, L., & Mitchell, C. (2002). Postmodern expressions of educational lead-

ership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 881–913). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Sackney, L., Walker, K., & Mitchell, C. (1999). Postmodern conceptions of power in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and Founda-tions, 14(1), 33–58.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Fran-cisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Shachar, H., & Shmuelevitz, H. (1997). Implementing cooperative learning, teacher collaboration and teachers’ sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 53–72.

Shlapentokh, D. (1995). History and irrationality: Postmodernism—East and West. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 9(2), 179–195.

Silova, I. (2009). The crisis of the Post-Soviet teaching profession in the Cauca-sus and Central Asia. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.4.366.

Silova, I. (2010). Re-discovering post-Socialism in comparative education. In I. Silova (Ed.), Post-socialism is not dead: (Re)reading the global in compara-tive education (pp. 1–20). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Stolp, S., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.

Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three el-ementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127–146.

Syumar, V. (2010). Viktor Yanukovych and postmodernity, Ukrains’ka Pravda [Ukrainian Truth], 4 June. www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2010/06/4/5104648/.

Tõkés, R. L. (2000). “Transitology”: Global dreams and post-Communist reali-

SPRING 2013 49

ties. Central Europe Review, 2(10), 13 March. www.ce-review.org/00/10/tokes10.html.

Torop, P. (2001). New paradigm of culture and/as a new paradigm of describ-ing culture: The Russian aspect. In T. Mochizuki (Ed.), Russian culture on the threshold of a new century (pp. 33–43). Sapporo, Japan: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.

Townsend, R. G. (1990). Toward a broader micropolitics of schools. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(2), 205–225.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.

Walker, K. D. (2006). Fostering hope: A leader’s first and last task. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 540–569.

Wanner, C. (1998). Burden of dreams: History and identity in post-Soviet Ukraine. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Wolczuk, K. (2004). Integration without Europeanisation: Ukraine and its policy toward the European Union. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zajda, J. (2007). Schooling the New Russians: Transforming Soviet students to capitalist entrepreneurs. Melbourne: James Nicholas.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.

Copyright of European Education is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Teacher Collaboration in Times of Uncertainty and Societal Change: The case study of post-Soviet...

Documents

Transcript of Teacher Collaboration in Times of Uncertainty and Societal Change: The case study of post-Soviet...