Education Policy Institutions’ Comprehension of the School as a Learning Organisation Approach: A Case Study of Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main question addressed in this research is why educational reforms fail worldwide, a fact verified after the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article the authors have the purpose of examining and identifying the perceptions of the representatives of educational political institutions in Latvia with the objective or mission of prioritizing their effectiveness, for this they will use an organizational methodology, called the Learning Organization Approach.

The issue is relevant from a political point of view, indeed after the pandemic all educational systems have been subjected to analysis and to make proposals that are adapted to the new world that the pandemic and digital transformation have left behind. It is appropriate to consider their conclusions in relation to promoting collaborative learning, cooperation in the educational community is essential, as well as sharing the same learning objectives that are reflected in the hallmarks of educational organizations and their improvement projects. Leadership is a key piece for success.

Undoubtedly, it addresses a specific gap in the field of educational organization, since this perspective has already been worked on for years in other countries.

References are appropriate. At the level of global policy references, now I miss specific references to the scientific discipline, learning organizations, or organizational development. The tables and figures with the results are coherent and appropriate. The recommendations would be to include classics such as Peter Senge, An organization learns when having optimized the training potential of

the processes that take place within it, acquire a qualifying function for the

who work in it, at the same time that it is attentive to respond to the demands and changes

external. In this sense, it institutionalizes improvement (organizational learning) as a

permanent process, growing as an organization. As Nancy Dixon (1994) puts it,

learning organizations "make intentional use of learning processes

individual, group, and system-level learning to transform the organization

in ways that progressively satisfy all those concerned".

four central aspects: the intentional character (and not only natural), how it should happen

at all organizational levels, the self-transformation of the organization and its

impact on all those involved (internal and external).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your informative support, valuable comments, and the suggestions for improvement. While we extensively researched Peter Senge’s publications and engaged in discussions about his ideas, we deliberately chose not to include him in our reference list. This decision stems from his focus on the concept of a business organization (as a learning organization).

Peter Senge proposed five main disciplines, including building a shared vision, systems thinking, mental models, team learning, and personal mastery. In contrast, our focus lies on an educational institution (specifically, a school as a learning organization) within the context of educational reforms in Latvia.

Our research methodology is based on the model of "School as a learning organisation," incorporating the seven dimensions and 49 performance indicators put forth by Kools and Stoll (2016). If our manuscript had adopted a historical (developmental) approach to the concept of a 'learning organization,' the references you suggested from prominent classics in this field (such as Senge, 1990; Dixon, 1994) would have been valuable additions to our reference list. Thank you again for your insightful feedback.

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this interesting paper on Latvian Education policy. I consider this research a valuable contribution to knowledge however I have 6 recommendations for improvement.

1. I would expect the literature review to engage with school improvement and leadership and management literature in order to strengthen the critical analysis in the discussion section.

2.In the methodology section some explanation of the types of institution selected for data collection is required. How were these institutions selected and why, what types of institution do they represent?  

3. What percentage of Latvian schools do these three institutions represent and is three sufficient number to base the generalisations recorded in the discussion section?

4. How were the participants from each institution chosen - do they include, for example, senior management? Institution 3 has only 2 participants for the 'focus group'. Is this a viable number?

5. An explanation  and discussion of research ethics.

6. In the discussion section an average level of actualisation is referred to twice. What is meant by 'average'?  

Addressing the issues above, together with a discussion of the limitations of the research should strengthen the viability and trustworthiness of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions for improvement. Our manuscript centers on educational reforms in Latvia, particularly the implementation of the "School as a Learning Organisation" (SLO) model with its seven dimensions and 49 performance indicators, as proposed by Kools and Stoll in 2016.

In our study, school leadership stands as one of the seven dimensions within the SLO framework, while school improvement serves as a central goal and core element of the entire SLO model. Although our theoretical framework does not extensively delve into each dimension, we have taken a detailed approach in the "Results" section, where we meticulously describe the 49 performance indicators across all seven dimensions.

Following your suggestions concerning the methodology section, we have provided additional explanations about the sampling process (refer to page 5, lines 231-234). Our sample encompasses all institutions engaged in shaping educational policy in Latvia, which includes the national-level implementation of educational reforms (n = 3), thereby ensuring the sample's representativeness at the national level. These institutions have been introduced in the introduction section on page 4, lines 173-174, 178-179, 183, 193-194 (namely, the Ministry of Education and Science, the State Education Quality Service, and the National Centre for Education).

For the sake of confidentiality and ethical adherence (refer to page 5, lines 233-234), we have used institution codes in both the methodology and results sections. Participation from each institution was strictly voluntary (page 5, line 238), and oral informed consent was secured from all participants partaking in the focus group discussions (page 5, lines 252-253; page 18, lines 689-690). Our study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Academic Ethics Codex of the University of Latvia (decision No. 2-3/46, 26.04.2021) (page 18, lines 686-688).

We have replaced the term "average" with "moderate" (page 17, lines 631 and 641) to signify that certain dimensions' performance indicators were mentioned partly by education policy institutions. In other words, not all institutions (only 1-2 out of 3) highlighted these indicators during the focus group discussions.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

While this is an interesting project, there are important structural changes that must be applied before the paper is ready for publication. First of all, a clear literature review and methodology sections are essential. Secondly, it is essential to ground the data analysis and discussion further in the literature and also engage in more critical evaluation, as particularly the discussion segment reads more like a summary of the findings. 

No major issues, minor editing is needed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your evaluation! We appreciate your feedback and have made several improvements to enhance the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Throughout the paper, we've included additional information to provide better context and understanding for the reader. Language edits, minor revisions, and rephrasing have been applied to ensure a smoother flow of the text.

Reviewers 1 and 2 have both acknowledged the logical and clear structure of our manuscript. Without more specific guidance from your end, it was challenging to pinpoint areas that could benefit from further enhancement. We are open to any additional suggestions you might have to help us refine our manuscript more effectively.

Once again, thank you for your time and evaluation.

Best regards,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied that you have addressed my original comments and would like to commend you on the production of an interesting and informative paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions in the initial phase. 

All the best,

Agnese Lastovska

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Hello and thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it was not possible to see an effort to make any of the required changes, reformat the literature or strengthen the criticality of the paper. The issue was not about the logic of the structure but flow, depth and particularly integration of the literature are required. Particularly the discussion reads more like a summary than an incisive effort to tease out not only the main findings but also critique them and identify areas for further research, possible application etc. These sections have to be improved before the paper is ready for publication. 

make sure please your adequately proofread the document. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments and suggestions. While we may not agree with all the points mentioned, we can understand your perspective and appreciate the effort you've put into providing feedback.

No additional changes have been made to the text, but some language improvements or clearer text flow have been incorporated.

All the best,

Authors of the article