Conference Agenda

In recent times, the study and analysis of schools located in socioeconomically challenging contexts have gained special attention. Improving schools in disadvantaged areas is today one of the most important issues on the agenda of researchers and policymakers, both nationally and internationally (Clarke & O'Donoghue, 2016; Harris & Chapman, 2002a, 2002b; Lupton, 2005; Maden, 2001; Muijs, 2003; Torres, Moncusí and Osvaldo, 2015; Olmo et al., 2021).

Research developed by Maden (2001) in the United Kingdom provided descriptions of good practices in schools with high vulnerability scenarios. With a similar research objective, Harris & Champan (2002a, 2002b) also highlighted the importance of distributed leadership in these contexts. Later, Lupton (2005) investigated the characteristics of these schools and established several characteristic elements. Among them, she highlighted the existence of continuous unpredictability together with the presence of low expectations. In addition, the author revealed that schools in difficult contexts have more problems taking on the same educational challenges than those in more favourable circumstances. On their side, Torres, Moncusí & Osvaldo (2015) showed that living in an unfavourable environment has a direct influence on the lives of the school population. Clarke & O'Donoghue (2016) also delved into the study of vulnerable schools located in the most challenging neighbourhoods.

Although the evidence from research on this subject shows that schools located in vulnerable contexts are characterized by being unstable and having students with low performance, low self-esteem and expectations (Lupton, 2005), there are also studies that reveal the ability of some schools to overcome and cope with adversity (Marujo et al., 2003; Olmo et al., 2021).

The works located within this second approach focus their attention on schools that have led to a transformation towards school improvement. Some of the key issues that have motivated this research field are as follows: how has the change been possible? what/who has brought it about? what does this school improvement materialise? how do they work in these schools? what kind of leadership is needed? How do they overcome adversities? (Day y Gu, 2015; Muijs, 2003; Hargreaves; 2007; Stoll, 2009).

The present study is part of this line of research, which has been developed within the framework of two larger research projects: I+D+i project "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement: intermediate leadership, networks and interrelationships. Schools in complex contexts" (Reference: PID2020-117020GB-I00), funded by the Agencia Estatal de Investigación of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/) and I+D+i Project "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement: intermediate leadership, networks and interrelationships" (Reference: P20_00311), funded by the Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation of Spain.

The purpose of this study is to know, understand and analyse the factors that have allowed a school, located in Spain, to transform its circumstances in order to achieve educational quality and equity.

Research on school improvement has accumulated an extensive list of factors facilitating the potential to turn around poorly performing schools (Leithwood et al., 2010; Murphy & Meyers, 2007). However, limited attention has been paid to contextual differences across schools, districts, and educational systems with distinct traditions and prerequisites. At the core of the problem lies the ever-present need to make trade-offs. While, in theory, it would be ideal to improve schools on all conditions identified as desirable for turnaround, this may not be feasible due to organisational capacity and resource constraints. Earlier empirical research on school turnaround relies either on qualitative case studies of one or several schools (Duke & Salmonowicz, 2010; Hallinger & Kantamara, 2001), or traditional regression methods (Boyne & Meier, 2009; Heissel & Ladd, 2018). What is missing is a case-oriented approach that addresses the complex causality related to school turnaround (van Der Steen et al., 2013). This study aims to address these contextual and complex causal patterns by making a systematic comparison of schools that do and do not make a turnaround across different school contexts (although generally within a Swedish intitutional context).

For years, educational researchers and policymakers in Germany have strongly supported the idea of transforming schools into all-day schools. The leading argument for the reform is that all-day schools can foster heterogeneous students better than half-day schools. Research from large-scale assessment studies has shown – the latest study provided by Henschel et al. (2022) based on data from the IQB National Assessment Study in Year 4 – that students from families with a migrant background achieve lower proficiency scores than students from non-migrant families. The same results have been shown for students from families with a low socio-economic background (SES; e.g., Sachse et al., 2022). Both findings can be explained by the situation that parents provide different qualitative and quantitative support for their children. In addition, studies have demonstrated that parental homework involvement is significant for learning success (e.g., Dettmers et al., 2019). Thus, there is a higher probability that parents speaking German as their L1 and with a high SES are better suited to provide numerous learning opportunities outside school and help with homework and school preparation than parents with a migrant background and/or with a low SES.

In order to establish more equality, the reform for all-day schools is being pushed forward. The assumption is that all-day schools provide more learning opportunities for all students. Furthermore, instead of the traditional homework format, alternative concepts regularly exist at all-day schools, thus students are supposed to learn primarily in school. In this respect, the reform can contribute to greater educational equity. School development projects such as the transformation to an all-day school require that schools collaborate with multiple stakeholders. In Germany, in addition to principals, school supervisors play an important role in the management of schools. As representatives of the state, they legally have to supervise schools and, secondly, they have an advisory function. They advise principals, for example, on the implementation of reforms and give schools support in carrying out school development projects. Despite an extensive body of research on all-day schools (e.g., their effectiveness, see overview in Fischer & Kuhn, 2022), the role of school supervisors in the all-day school reform has not yet been considered. Since all-day schools are not compulsory in Germany yet (unlike Denmark, e.g., see Holm, 2015), the successful introduction highly depends on the various stakeholders and their beliefs on the innovation. Against this background, this study aims at exploring the beliefs of school supervisors on the implementation of all-day schools as one form of extended education. We focus on the concept of beliefs as they are considered to have a guiding function when it comes to the implementation of “new pedagogical approaches and reforms” (Fives & Buehl, 2012). Following Pajares (1992), we understand beliefs as an “individual’s judgment of the truth or falsity of a proposition” (p. 316). With regard to the reform under study, we ask whether school supervisors share the general positive assumption on the effects of all-day schools. In addition, we are interested in the factors that enable, facilitate or impede implementation of the reform from the perspective of school supervision.